Plaintiff Seeks to Notice Nationwide Class of J.G. Wentworth Loan Officers Allegedly Denied Overtime by siegellawgroup

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 330

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Texas Sherman Division § § § § § § § § § §

David Dickens, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. J. G. Wentworth Home Lending LLC, Defendant

CA No: 4:17-cv-642-ALM-KPJ Jury Demanded

Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and Conditional Certification Plaintiff David Dickens (“Plaintiff” or “Dickens”), individually and on behalf of other similarly-situated current and former loan officers (“Potential Plaintiffs” or “Class Members”) including Andrew Robinson and Robert Staab employed by Defendant J. G. Wentworth Home Lending, LLC and its predecessor Weststar Mortgage, Inc.1 (“Defendant” or “JGWHL”), hereby files this Motion for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and Conditional Certification (the “Motion”) and moves this Court for an order granting conditional certification of Plaintiff’s collective action claims. Plaintiff easily meets the lenient conditional certification standard. I.

OVERVIEW

The illegal compensation policy of Defendant’s Loan Officers is set forth in writing in an Exhibit to each Loan Officer’s Compensation and Employment Agreement. That Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Pursuant to the written policy, if the Loan Officers’ commission for

J.G. Wentworth Home Lending, LLC bought Weststar Mortgage, Inc. during the three years preceding this action. _______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 1

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 331

the pay period is greater than the hourly pay, the Loan Officers only get a commission and no hourly pay is paid. That means no overtime is paid. Because Loan Officers are non-exempt employees, not tracking hours, not paying overtime and just paying commissions is illegal.2 The written policy applies to all Loan Officers. The Loan Officers all perform exactly the same duties and are paid in the exact same manner. If ever there was a case for notice and conditional certification, this is it. The Court can decide in one proceeding whether the Loan Officers are entitled to overtime pay.3 II.

NATURE OF THE CLAIM

This Motion is brought pursuant to the collective action provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (“FLSA”). See also Plaintiff’s First Amended Collective Action Complaint (Dkt. #12) (the “Complaint”) ¶ 1.1. Under the FLSA, individuals may bring “collective actions” on behalf of themselves and on behalf of those “similarly situated.” See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The standards applicable to a request for notice to similarly situated individuals are “lenient” and Plaintiff is only required to show that similarly situated individuals exist. Since Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, two other individuals (“Opt-in Plaintiffs”) (see Dkt. # 11, 11-1, 11-2) have elected to join this action or opt into it, one Loan Officer each from Defendant’s Michigan and Florida offices.4 Upon finding out about this lawsuit, another Plano Loan Officer, Xavier

A representative sample of Plaintiff’s pay stubs establishing that no hourly pay is paid and no overtime is paid is attached as Exhibit B. 2

While Plaintiff believes liability is clear, he recognizes that Defendant will obviously raise arguments why it believes it is not in violation the FLSA and is not liable for overtime; those arguments go to the merits and are not proper considerations for notice and conditional certification. 4

Together Dickens and the Opt-in Plaintiffs will be collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiffs.” Dickens has submitted a declaration in support of this Motion; it is attached hereto and included herein as Exhibit C. The two Opt-in Plaintiffs, Andrew Robinson and Robert Staab have submitted declarations in support of this Motion; they are attached hereto and included herein as Exhibits D and E, respectively. _______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 2

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 332

Martinez, has expressed interest in joining this action.5 A Notice to Potential Plaintiffs (“Notice”) will allow Class Members to make an informed decision as to whether or not to participate in this claim. A proposed form of the Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit G. The proposed Consent Form is attached hereto as Exhibit H. A group of similarly situated employees (Class Members) exist who work(ed) as Loan Officers for Defendant across the nation in that they perform(ed) the same job duties under the same pay provisions and practices as the Plaintiff. Consequently, these individuals should be notified of this action and their right to participate if they so desire. Because Plaintiff readily meets the lenient burden applicable at this stage, conditional certification and notice to the Potential Plaintiffs is appropriate. See, e.g., Stier v. Great Plains Nat’l Bank, No. 4:15-CV-519, 2016 WL 1572194, at *1-2 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 19, 2016)(Mazzant, J.)(This Court recognized the lenient standard and certified a nationwide class of loan officers who alleged that the defendant failed to pay them compensation tied to actual hours worked, denying them overtime pay as required by the FLSA.). See also Barnett v. Countrywide Credit Indus., Inc., No. 3:01-CV-1182-M, 2002 WL 1023161, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. May 21, 2002) (Lynn, J.) (The court certified a nationwide class of employees challenging their employer’s decision to classify them as exempt under the FLSA and recognized the lenient standard). Moreover, because the recovery6 for each Class Member could be eroding daily, the Court should authorize Notice as soon as

Martinez has also submitted a declaration in support of this Motion; it is attached hereto and included herein as Exhibit F. For ease of reference, Martinez will also be referenced to herein as part of the “Plaintiffs,” as he has expressly stated he will be joining this lawsuit. See Exh. F ¶ 1. 5

The FLSA statute of limitations runs from the date an individual opts into the case. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(c). Every day without notice is a day’s overtime pay the employees lose forever. Plaintiff therefore requests an expedited determination of this Motion. _______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 3

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 333

possible. III.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

A. Job Duties and Pay Scheme for Plaintiffs and Class Members 1.

Defendant employ(ed) Plaintiffs and the Class Members as loan officers whose

primary job duties involve(d) selling Defendant’s home loan products to individuals over the telephone and through the internet (“Loan Officers”).7 Compl. ¶ 1.2, 2.2, 6.2; Exh. C ¶¶ 2, 5, 6, 7; Exh. D ¶¶ 2, 4, 5; Exh. E ¶¶ 2, 4, 5; Exh. F ¶¶ 2, 4, 5. The Loan Officers do/did not customarily and regularly make sales at their customer’s home or place of business. Compl. ¶5.4; Exh. C ¶ ¶ 5, 6; Exh. D ¶ ¶ 4, 5; Exh. E ¶¶ 4, 5; Exh. F ¶¶ 4, 5. Instead, the Loan Officers regularly make/made sales over the phone or the internet. Id.

The Loan Officers work(ed) out of

Defendant’s regional offices/call centers. See Exh. C ¶ ¶ 2, 4, 5; Exh. D ¶ ¶ 2, 3, 4; Exh. E ¶¶ 2, 3, 4; Exh. F ¶¶ 2, 3, 4. 2.

Plaintiffs routinely worked over 40 hours per week. Compl. ¶¶ 5.5, 6.2; Exh. C ¶

8; Exh. D ¶ 6; Exh. E ¶ 6; Exh. F ¶ 6. Plaintiffs testify that the other Loan Officers in their offices routinely worked over 40 hours per week, as they worked side by side with such Loan Officers and saw the hours they put in and discussed such facts with them. Exh. C ¶ 9; Exh. D ¶ 7; Exh. E ¶ 7; Exh. F ¶ 7. Plaintiffs were routinely told by management that they were expected to work nights, weekends, and long hours in addition to the 40 plus hours per week they worked in the office and that this would be on their “own time” and they would not be paid overtime for

Loan Officers include, without limitation, current or former non-supervisory employees throughout JGWHL with such job titles as “Loan Officer,” “Mortgage Loan Officer,” “Mortgage Banker,” “Loan Originator,” “Mortgage Loan Originator” and other job titles performing the same or similar duties as Plaintiff and receiving compensation in the same or similar manner as Plaintiff. Compl. ¶ 2.2; Exh. C ¶ 3. _______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 4

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 334

it. Exh. C ¶ 9; Exh. D ¶ 7; Exh. E ¶ 7; Exh. F ¶ 7. Plaintiffs testify that the other Loan Officers in their offices and across the nation were told they were expected to work overtime and not be compensated for it. See Exh. C ¶¶ 9, 10; Exh. D ¶ 7; Exh. E ¶ 7; Exh. F ¶ 7. Plaintiffs testify that they had weekly company-wide Loan Officer training calls in which Loan Officers across the country attended. See Exh. C ¶¶ 6, 9; Exh. D ¶¶ 5, 7; Exh. E ¶¶ 5, 7; Exh. F ¶¶ 5, 7. It was discussed in these calls how the Loan Officers across the country who were performing well worked nights, weekends, and long hours in addition to the 40 plus hours per week they worked in the office, although they were not paid overtime for it. Exh. C ¶ 9; Exh. D ¶ 7; Exh. E ¶ 7; Exh. F ¶ 7. See also Exh. C ¶ 10; Exh. F ¶ 8. 3.

Defendant pay/paid its Loan Officers the greater of an hourly rate or a commission.

Compl. ¶ 1.3; Exh. C ¶¶ 11, 13; Exh. D ¶¶ 8, 10; Exh. E ¶¶ 8, 10; Exh. F ¶¶ 9, 11. If the commission for the pay period is/was greater than the hourly rate pay, Plaintiffs and the Loan Officers are/were not paid the hourly rate. Id. They are/were solely paid the commission. Id. 4.

Defendant’s compensation policy for the Loan Officers (the “Compensation

Policy”) is set forth in Exhibit A to the Loan Officer Compensation and Employment Agreement, which all Loan Officers signed. See Exh. C ¶ 12; Exh. D ¶ 9; Exh. E ¶ 9; Exh. F ¶ 10. 5.

The Compensation Policy states: 1. For the pay period between the first (1st) and fifteenth (15th) day of the month, Loan Officer shall be paid an amount equal to the greater of (a) Loan Officer’s Guaranteed Hourly Wage or (b) Loan Officer’s Partial Monthly Commission. 2. For the pay period between the sixteenth (16th) and last day of the month, Loan Officer shall be paid an amount equal to the greater of (a) Loan Officer’s Guaranteed Hourly Wage or (b) Loan Officer’s Partial Monthly Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 5

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 335

See Exh. C ¶ 12, Exh. 1 thereto; Exh. D ¶ 9, Exh. 1 thereto; Exh. E ¶ 9, Exh. 1 thereto; Exh. F ¶ 10, Exh. 1 thereto. The footer on Exhibit A identifies it as “Exhibit A – Call Center Loan Officer Agreement – Commission Revised December 31, 2013.” See id. 6.

The Compensation Policy applied/applies to all Loan Officers. See Exh. C ¶¶ 12,

13; Exh. D ¶¶ 9, 10; Exh. E ¶¶ 9, 10; Exh. F ¶¶ 10, 11. 7.

The hours worked by the Loan Officers are/were not always accurately tracked or

counted towards total hours worked because no overtime was paid for these hours. Compl. ¶ 1.4; Exh. C ¶ 14; Exh. D ¶ 11; Exh. E ¶ 11; Exh. F ¶ 12. Plaintiff Dickens testifies that his bi-weekly earnings statements do not show hours worked per week and do not reflect the overtime hours he routinely worked; the earnings statements only show commissions earned and paid. See Exh. C ¶ 14 and Exhs. 2 and 3 thereto. Similarly, Opt-In Plaintiffs, Robinson and Staab as well as Martinez also testify that their bi-weekly earnings statements do not show hours worked per week and do not reflect the overtime hours they routinely worked; the earnings statements only show commissions earned and paid. See Exh. D ¶ 11 and Exh. 2 thereto; Exh. E ¶ 11 and Exh. 2 thereto; Exh. F ¶ 12 and Exh. 2 thereto. Further, Plaintiff Dickens testifies that when he tracked and reported more than 40 hours worked on his time card, no overtime hours showed on his paycheck and no overtime pay showed on the paycheck. Exh. C ¶ 14.

Martinez testifies that he was

specifically told by management that his time card would be changed to show not more than 40 hours worked in a workweek because he was not going to be paid for it anyway. Exh. D ¶ 12. Optin Plaintiff Robinson testifies that the Loan Officers in his office were instructed by management to just have their time clocks read 40 hours in a week (no matter how many hours they worked) because anything above that did not matter as they were not going to be paid for overtime. Exh. E _______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 6

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 336

¶ 11. Opt-in Plaintiff Staab testifies that his superiors made it clear to him that it did not matter how many hours he and the Loan Officers worked because they were not paid overtime. Exh. F ¶ 11. Because Defendant did not accurately track and pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours, Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs and the Class Members compensation tied to actual hours worked, resulting in a denial of statutory overtime under the FLSA. See Exh. C ¶¶ 9, 10, 14; Exh. D ¶¶ 7, 11; Exh. E ¶¶ 7, 11; Exh. F ¶¶ 7, 8, 12. 8.

Defendant willfully failed to pay overtime to Plaintiffs and the Class Members

despite having awareness of the FLSA’s overtime requirements. Compl. ¶ 5.11. Specific facts exposing that Defendant willfully violates/violated the FLSA include the fact that Defendant (1) instituted and enforced the Compensation Policy; (2) failed to keep proper employment records for Plaintiff and the Class Members; and (3) failed to keep accurate time records for the hours worked by Plaintiffs and the Class Members during their employment. Id. B.

Parties

Plaintiff Dickens, Opt-in Plaintiffs Robinson and Staab as well as Martinez worked

for Defendant in its regional offices/call centers across the nation in the three years preceding the filing of this case. See Compl. ¶ 2.1; Exh. C ¶¶ 2, 5; Exh. D ¶¶ 2, 4; Exh. E ¶¶ 2, 4; Exh. F ¶¶ 2, 4. Specifically, Defendant employed Plaintiff Dickens as a Loan Officer from approximately December 2015 to approximately January 2017 in its Plano, Texas call center. Compl. ¶ 2.1; Exh. C. ¶ 2. Defendant employed (a) Martinez as a Loan Officer from approximately September 2016 to approximately September 2017 in its Plano, Texas call center (Exh. F ¶ 2); (b) Opt-in Plaintiff Robinson as a Loan Officer from approximately October 2014 to approximately July 2015 in its Troy, Michigan call center (Exh. D ¶ 2); and (c) Opt-in Plaintiff Staab as a Loan Officer from _______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 7

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 337

approximately January 2016 to approximately November 2016 in its Boca Raton, Florida call center (Exh. E ¶ 2). 10.

Defendant has business operations throughout the United States including, but not

limited to, regional offices/call centers from which the Loan Officers operated in Virginia, Texas, Michigan, Florida and Arizona. See Exh. C ¶ 4; Exh. D ¶ 3; Exh. E ¶ 3; Exh. F ¶ 3. During the three-year period before this action, Defendant (and/or its predecessor Weststar Mortgage, Inc.) employed approximately 30 Loan Officers in its Plano, Texas office, approximately 15 Loan Officers in its Troy, Michigan office, and approximately 60 Loan Officers in its Boca Raton office. See Exh. C ¶ 2; Exh. D ¶ 3; Exh. E ¶ 3. During the three-year period before this action, Defendant (and/or its predecessor Weststar Mortgage) employed approximately 200 total Loan Officers at any given time in its five call centers throughout the country. See Exh. C ¶ 3. 11.

Plaintiff brings his FLSA claims as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §

216(b) and seeks to certify as a class all Loan Officers employed by Defendant or its predecessor Weststar Mortgage across the United States during the three years preceding the filing of this action. C. Collective Action for Overtime 12.

The Opt-in Plaintiffs and the Class Members are similarly situated to Plaintiff in

terms of job duties. See supra Section III.A.¶ 1. The Opt-in Plaintiffs and the Class Members are similarly situated to Plaintiff in terms of pay schemes. See supra Section III.A.¶¶ 2-7. Plaintiff Dickens, the Opt-in Plaintiffs, Martinez and the Class Members were subjected to the same illegal pay provisions, i.e. the Compensation Policy that failed to pay the Loan Officers (1) overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek; and (2) one-and-one-half times their regular rates _______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 8

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 338

of pay for all overtime hours worked. See id. Accordingly, the Opt-in Plaintiffs, Martinez and the Class Members are similarly situated to Plaintiff Dickens in terms of job duties and pay provisions. IV.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

“The FLSA gives employees the right to bring an action on behalf of themselves, as well as ‘other employees similarly situated.’” Stier, 2016 WL 1572194, at *1 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). “‘Under § 216(b), district courts have the discretionary power to conditionally certify collective actions and authorize notice to potential class members.’” Id. (quoting Tice v. AOC Senior Home Health Corp., 826 F.Supp.2d 990, 994 (E.D. Tex. 2011)(Schell, J.)). Court-authorized notice avoids disputes over the content of the notice, prevents proliferation of multiple individual lawsuits, assures joinder of additional plaintiffs is accomplished properly and efficiently, and expedites resolution of the dispute. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 171-72 (1989). Because the statute of limitations is not tolled for putative class members until they file a consent to join the action, 29 U.S.C. § 216(c), the decision to send notice is typically made early in the case.8 “FLSA actions are generally favored because such actions reduce litigation costs for the individual plaintiffs and create judicial efficiency by resolving in one proceeding common issues of law and fact arising from the same alleged activity.” Roberts v. S.B. Southern Welding, L.L.C., 140 F. Supp.3d 601, 604-05 (N.D. Tex. 2015)(Boyle, J.)(internal quotations and citation omitted). Plaintiffs requests this Court to conditionally certify the following class: All persons who are or have been employed by J.G. Wentworth Home Lending, L.L.C. (“JGWHL”) or WestStar Mortgage, Inc. within the 8

A three-year statute of limitations is applicable in this case (in addition to any applicable tolling) because Plaintiff alleges Defendant willfully violated federal overtime laws. See supra Section III.A.¶ 8; Compl. ¶ 5.11. The statute of limitations for willful violations of the FLSA is three years. 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). _______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 9

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 339

United States as “Loan Officers,” “Mortgage Loan Officers,” “Mortgage Bankers,” “Loan Originators,” “Mortgage Loan Originators” or any other like mortgage sales employee at any time during the three-year period preceding the date of the Court’s Order granting this motion. Allowing early notice and full participation by the Class Members “assure[s] that the full ‘similarly situated’ decision is informed, efficiently reached, and conclusive.”

Sperling v.

Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc., 118 F.R.D. 392, 406 (D. N.J.), aff’d, 862 F.2d 439 (3d Cir. 1988), aff’d, 493 U.S. 165 (1989). Once the notice and opt-in period is complete, the Court will have the benefit of knowing the actual makeup of the collective action. Clarke v. Convergys Customer Mgmt. Grp., Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 601, 605 (S.D. Tex. 2005) (notice informs the original parties and the court of the number and identity of persons desiring to participate in the suit). Therefore, early notice will help the Court to manage this case because it can “ascertain the contours of the action at the outset.” Hoffman-La Roche, 493 U.S. at 172-73. A.

The First Tier of the Lusardi Two-Tiered Analysis Applies Here.

District courts considering requests to issue notice to potential plaintiffs use a two-stage approach to the conditional certification issue.9 As the Fifth Circuit noted, the two-step approach is the typical manner in which collective actions proceed. Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 553 F.3d 913, 915 n.2 (5th Cir. 2008). The courts in the Eastern District of Texas, including this Court,

The Fifth Circuit ruled long ago that Rule 23 cases and Section 216(b) actions are “mutually exclusive and irreconcilable.” LaChapelle v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 513 F.2d 286, 289 (5th Cir. 1975). Eleven years ago, the Fifth Circuit mentioned the existence (at that time) of two different approaches used by other courts to the certification issue – the two-stage approach and the Rule 23 approach. Mooney v. Aramco Services Co., 54 F.3d 1207, 1214 (5th Cir. 1995), overruled on other grounds by Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003). In the intervening time, the Rule 23 approach mentioned by the Mooney court and used by one Colorado district court in Shushan v. Univ. of Colorado, 132 F.R.D. 263, 265 (D. Colo. 1990) has been disavowed and abandoned by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and is not the proper certification methodology to use in FLSA collective actions. Thiessen, 267 F.3d at 1105. This Court has noted that the two-stage approach, the Lusardi approach (see Lusardi v. Xerox, Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D. N.J. 1987)) is “‘the prevailing standard among federal courts and is the standard most frequently used by this court.’” Stier, 2016 WL 1572194, at *1 (quoting Tice, 826 F.Supp.2d at 994). _______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 10 9

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 340

use the Lusardi two-stage approach. See Zachary v Cobalt Mortg., Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00754, 2017 WL 1079374, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2017)(Mazzant, J.); Stier, 2016 WL 1572194, at *1; Tice, 826 F.Supp.2d at 994; Allen v. McWane, Inc., No. 2:06-CV-158 (TJW), 2006 WL 3246531, at *1 (E.D.Tex. Nov. 7, 2006)(Ward, J). In Stier, this Court permitted companywide notice to loan officers throughout the country and described the two-stage process as follows: Under Lusardi, certification for a collective action under § 216(b) is divided into two stages: (1) the notice stage; and (2) the merits stage. Id. At the notice stage, the district court makes a decision – usually based only on the pleadings and any affidavits which have been submitted- whether notice of the action should be given to potential class members. Stier, 2016 WL 1572194, at *1 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Here, this case is at the first stage of the Lusardi analysis because the parties have not conducted any discovery. B.

The First Stage Notice Standard Is Lenient.

“Because the Court has minimal evidence before it at this, the notice stage, ‘the determination is made using a fairly lenient standard requiring nothing more than substantial allegations that the putative class members were victims of a single decision, policy or plan.’” Stier, 2016 WL 1572194, at *1 (quoting Tice, 826 F. Supp.2d at 995). “‘Notice is appropriate if the court concludes that there is some factual nexus which binds the named plaintiffs and potential class members together as victims of a particular alleged [policy or practice].’” Stier, 2016 WL 1572194, at *1 (quoting Allen v. McWane, Inc., 2006 WL 3246531, at *2 (some internal quotations omitted). “‘If the first step [of the Lusardi approach] is satisfied, the court conditionally certifies a class; and the action proceeds as a collective action during discovery.’” Stier, 2016 WL 1572194, at *1 (quoting Sedtal v. Genuine Parts Co., No. 1:08-CV-413-TH, 2009 WL 2216593, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 23, 2009)). _______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 11

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 341

This Court and other courts in this District have routinely recognized and applied this lenient standard in certifying collective actions and issuing notice to potential plaintiffs. See Collier v. Careplus Health Servs., Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00178, 2017 WL 434350, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2017)(Mazzant, J.); Stier, 2016 WL 1572194, at *1-2; Tice, 826 F. Supp.2d at 995-96; Sedtal, 2009 WL 2216593, at *2; Mims v. Carrier Corp., No. 2:06-CV-206, 2008 WL 906335, at *3-4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2008) (Ward, J.). To impose a stricter standard of proof at the notice stage would unnecessarily hinder the development of collective actions and would undermine the "broad remedial goals" of the FLSA. Sperling, 118 F.R.D. at 406, 407 (“[N]otice to absent class members need not await a conclusive finding of ‘ similar situations.’”). Only at the second stage, at the close of discovery, does the Court make a “factual determination” as to whether the class members are similarly situated. Mooney, 54 F.3d at 1214. The lenient standard applicable at the first stage “typically results in ‘conditional certification’ of a representative class,” to whom notice is sent and who receives an opportunity to “opt in.” Id. Here, Plaintiff easily satisfies the lenient Lusardi first stage analysis that Loan Officers are similarly situated so this Court should order notice issue. “At this stage, ‘Plaintiff bears the burden of presenting preliminary facts to show that there is a similarly situated group of potential plaintiffs.’” Stier, 2016 WL 1572194, at *2 (quoting Cripe v. Denison Glass Mirror, Inc., No. 4:11CV-224, 2012 WL 947455, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2012) report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 947362 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2012)).

“This does not mean that their positions must be

identical, as ‘the court need not find uniformity in each and every aspect of employment to determine a class of employees are similarly situated [under § 216(b)].’” Stier, 2016 WL 1572194, at *2 (quoting Tice, 826 F. Supp. 2d at 995-96. “Rather, ‘the relevant inquiry is whether the _______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 12

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 342

potential class members performed the same basic tasks and were subject to the same pay practices.’” Stier, 2016 WL 1572194, at *2 (quoting Tice, 826 F. Supp. 2d at 996). “[Plaintiff] need only show that [his] position is similar to the potential plaintiffs[.]” Stier, 2016 WL 1572194, at *2 (internal quotations and citation omitted). C.

This Case Satisfies the Lenient First-Tier Analysis – Loan Officers Are Similarly Situated.

Plaintiff here easily demonstrates “substantial allegations” that contain “some factual or legal nexus’” among his claims which satisfies the Lusardi lenient first step. Plaintiff brings forward extensive evidence through numerous declarations from Loan Officers who worked in Defendant’s offices in various states which demonstrates that Loan Officers perform(ed) similar job duties and received similar pay nationwide pursuant to uniform, company-wide policies which violate the FLSA. Plaintiff brings forth substantial evidence that Plaintiff, Opt-in Plaintiffs, Martinez and the Class Members all were employed by Defendant to carry out their primary duty of selling Defendant’s home loan products to individuals over the telephone and through the internet. See supra Section III.A.¶ 1, Section III.C.¶ 12 (and evidence cited to in both sections). Plaintiff brings forth substantial evidence that Plaintiff, Opt-in Plaintiffs, Martinez and the Class Members were subjected to the same illegal pay provisions throughout different states and different offices: the Compensation Policy that failed to pay the Loan Officers (1) overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek; and (2) one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all overtime hours worked. See supra Section III.A.¶¶2-7, Section II.C.¶ 12 (and evidence cited to in both sections). Accordingly, the Opt-in Plaintiffs, Martinez and the Class Members are similarly situated to Plaintiff in terms of job duties and pay provisions and this Court should conditionally certify this case. See Zachary, 2017 WL 1079374, at *3 (Court certified a nationwide _______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 13

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 343

class of loan processors in an off-the-clock case based on declarations plaintiff submitted from processors in Texas, Washington and Colorado testifying that each manager told them not to report all overtime hours worked during a week); Stier, 2016 WL 1572194, at *2 (Court certified a nationwide class of loan officers based on declarations plaintiff submitted from officers in a handful of states testifying that defendant failed to pay loan officers compensation tied to actual hours worked, denying them overtime pay required under the FLSA). Allen, 2006 WL 3246531, at *3 (The court certified a nationwide class of employees based on declarations from employees at six facilities, rejecting defendant’s argument that declarations were required from every facility in the nation in order to certify a nationwide class. The Court found that the declarations submitted were representative and, therefore, plaintiffs had fulfilled their duty to bring forth competent evidence that similarly situated potential plaintiffs existed). D.

This Court Should Authorize the Proposed Notice.

Plaintiff asks the Court to approve the proposed Notice and Consent Form attached as Exhibits G and H, respectively. The Notice and Consent Form are based on Notices and Consent Forms this Court and District has previously approved though Plaintiff has obviously modified them for this particular case. Plaintiff seeks a sixty (60) day opt-in period measured from the date notice is mailed. Plaintiff seeks an Order from this Court requiring Defendant to disclose the names, last known addresses, and email addresses of the above-defined Class Members. Plaintiff requests this information be provided within seven days from the entry of the Court’s Order in usable electronic form to reduce any delays in sending out the Notices.

_______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 14

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 344

Further, Plaintiff requests that this Court allow the proposed Notice and Consent Forms to be mailed and emailed to the class members See Zachary, 2017 WL 1079374, at *4 (This Court granted notice by mail and e-mail); Collier, 2017 WL 434350, at *3 (This Court granted notice by mail and e-mail); Beall v. Tyler Techs., Inc., No. 2-08-CV-422 (TJW), 2009 WL 3064689, at *1-2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2009) (Ward, J.) (court granted class notice via email and later compelled the employer to produce all email addresses, both personal and work). IV.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff satisfies the lenient burden required at the first stage of conditional certification. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: (1) conditionally certify this case as a collective action; (2) order Defendant to provide Plaintiff with the names, last known address, dates of employment, work location, telephone number, and e-mail address for all those similarly situated employees in an electronic format (e.g., Word, Excel) within seven (7) days after the Court’s Order; and; (3) direct the issuance of Plaintiff’s proposed Notice to all such persons.

_______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 15

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 345

Respectfully submitted, By:

/s/ Chris R. Miltenberger Chris R. Miltenberger Texas Bar Number: 14171200

Attorney-In-Charge The Law Office of Chris R. Miltenberger, PLLC 1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100 Southlake, Texas 76092-4322 817-416-5060 (office) 817-416-5062 (fax) chris@crmlawpractice.com -andJACK SIEGEL Texas Bar No. 24070621 SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 10440 N. Central Expy. Suite 1040 Dallas, Texas 75231 (214) 706-0834 phone (469) 339-0204 fax www.siegellawgroup.biz Attorneys for Plaintiff Certificate of Conference The undersigned conferred with Defendant’s counsel in an effort to resolve the issues presented in this Motion. Defendant’s counsel advised the undersigned that Defendant is opposed to the relief sought in this Motion. Therefore, this Motion is presented to the Court for a determination. By:

/s/ Chris R. Miltenberger Chris R. Miltenberger

_______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 16

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28 Filed 12/04/17 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 346

Certificate of Service The undersigned certifies that on December 4, 2017, the foregoing document was filed electronically through the Courtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CM/ECF system in compliance with the Local Rules. By:

/s/ Chris R. Miltenberger Chris R. Miltenberger

_______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Motion for Notice and Conditional Certification Page | 17

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-1 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 347

Exhibit A

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-1 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 348

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-1 Filed 12/04/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 349

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-1 Filed 12/04/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 350

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-1 Filed 12/04/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 351

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 352

Exhibit B

CO. FILE DEPT. CLOCK VCHR. NO. 055 Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-2 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 353

ABB

600011

0E1004

0000410403

Earnings Statement

J G WENTWORTH HOME LENDING LLC 3350 COMMISSION COURT LAKE RIDGE , VA 22192

Period Beginning: Period Ending: Pay Date:

DAVID DICKENS 328 WOODCREST DRIVE RICHARDSON TX 75080

Taxable Marital Status: Married Exemptions/Allowances: Federal: 1 TX: No State Income Tax

rate

hours

Commission Admin Bonus Draw

this period

year to date

9 732 61

Gross Pay

09/25/2016 10/09/2016 10/14/2016

9 732 61

70 975 500 4 500 75 975

44 00 00 44

Other Benefits and this period

Comtch

total to date

204 39

1 096 30

Statutory Federal Income Tax Social Security Tax Medicare Tax

1 535 28 577 05 134 95

8 921 66 4 250 86 994 15

Dental125 Health Savings Med Hdhp Ppo1 Vision 401K$ Med Hdhp Ppo1

16 250 156 1 1 362

311 44 4 750 00 2 317 89 33 84 7 308 71 584 01

Net Pay

5 697 49

Check1

5 697 49

Net Check

56* 00* 83* 88* 57*

24 840 42

0 00

* Excluded from federal taxable wages Your federal taxable wages this period are $7 944 77

2000 A DP, LLC

J G WENTWORTH HOME LENDING LLC 3350 COMMISSION COURT LAKE RIDGE VA 22192

Deposited

to the account of

DAVID DICKENS

Advice number:

00000410403

Pay date:

10/14/2016

account number

xxxxx8788

transit

ABA

xxxx xxxx

amount

$5 697 49

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 354

Exhibit C

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E7995A1-4D98-41B2-8E35-9BA47BE7E679

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 355

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Texas Sherman Division David Dickens, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. J. G. Wentworth Home Lending LLC, Defendant

§ § § § § § § § § § §

CA No: 4:17-cv-642-ALM-KPJ Jury Demanded

DECLARATION OF DAVID DICKENS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1746 IN SUPPORT OF PROCEEDING AS A COLLECTIVE ACTION I, David Dickens, make the following declaration subject to the penalties for perjury: 1.

My name is David Dickens. I am the named plaintiff in the above-

numbered and-styled lawsuit. I am fully competent to make this declaration, have personal knowledge of the following facts, and could testify to them if called upon to do so. 2.

I was employed by J.G. Wentworth Home Lending, LLC

(“JGWHL”) as a loan officer (“Loan Officer”) in its Plano, Texas office from approximately December 2015 to approximately January 2017. JGWHL purchased

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of David Dickens

Page 1

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E7995A1-4D98-41B2-8E35-9BA47BE7E679

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 356

West Star Mortgage and some of our employment documents reference West Star Mortgage. There were approximately 30 other Loan Officers working at or from the Plano, Texas office during my time there. Overall, there were approximately 200 Loan Officers nationwide. As a result of my employment with JGWHL, I have personal knowledge of and experience with the job duties of its Loan Officers and its procedures and policies for compensating its Loan Officers. 3.

Loan Officers throughout JGWHL who had the same or similar

duties as me and received compensation in the same manner as me were sometimes entitled other things such as, without limitation, “Loan Officer,” “Mortgage Loan Officer,” “Mortgage Banker,” “Loan Originator,” “Mortgage Loan Originator.” 4.

JGWHL is in the business of providing home loan products to its

customers nationwide. JGWHL’s has business operations throughout the United States and operates out of regional offices/call centers located in each of at least five states: Virginia, Texas, Michigan, Florida and Arizona (each a “Call Center” and collectively the “Call Centers”). 5.

As a Loan Officer, my primary job responsibilities consisted of

selling JGWHL’s home loan products to individuals over the telephone and through the internet.

I did not customarily and regularly make sales at its

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of David Dickens

Page 2

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E7995A1-4D98-41B2-8E35-9BA47BE7E679

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 357

customers’ homes or places of business. Instead, I regularly made sales over the phone or the internet. I worked out of Defendant’s Plano, Texas Call Center. 6.

I am aware that other Loan Officers in the Plano, Texas office

performed similar job duties as I did for JGWHL. I am aware of this fact because I worked side by side with such Loan Officers and saw the work that they did. Additionally, I am aware that other Loan Officers across the nation performed similar job duties as I did for JGWHL. I am aware of this fact because I attended weekly company-wide Loan Officer training calls in which Loan Officers across the country were on the calls. It was discussed on these calls what our job duties were and from these calls I learned that all Loan Officer’s primary job duties were the same, i.e., to sell JGWHL’s home loan products to individuals over the telephone and through the internet. 7.

I have also reviewed open position job postings for Loan Officer

positions. JGWHL’s postings show that the duties and responsibilities of the Loan Officers in other Call Centers across the country are the same as mine. 8.

I routinely worked over 40 hours per week. I generally worked

Monday through Friday during regular office hours with no lunch break. Additionally, I often worked from home in the evenings from 6:30 to 8:00 and I often worked on weekends too.

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of David Dickens

Page 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E7995A1-4D98-41B2-8E35-9BA47BE7E679

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 358

Other Loan Officers routinely worked over 40 hours per week. I

worked side by side with Loan Officers and saw the hours they put in and saw how they were working nights and weekends in addition to a regular 40-hour work week. I and the other Loan Officers were routinely told by management that we were expected to work nights, weekends, and long hours in addition to the 40 plus hours per week we worked in the office and that this would be on our â&#x20AC;&#x153;own timeâ&#x20AC;? and we would not be paid overtime for it. In our weekly Loan Officer training calls, we were told that Loan Officers across the nation were expected to work overtime and not be compensated for it. Specifically, we were told by management in these calls how the Loan Officers across the country who were performing well worked nights, weekends, and long hours in addition to the 40 plus hours per week they worked in the office, although they were not paid overtime for it. 10.

Additionally, almost daily, I and other Loan Officers nationwide

were emailed performance reports comparing individual Loan Officers and Call Centers to each other, including such information as number of calls made, number of applications taken, number of interest rates locked, closings, fundings, etc. My manager would tell me and the other Loan Officers that Loan Officers and other Call Centers across the country that had higher numbers were working nights, weekends and long hours, although not compensated for it.

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of David Dickens

Page 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E7995A1-4D98-41B2-8E35-9BA47BE7E679

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 359

11.

I was paid an hourly rate and a commission. If the commission for

the pay period was greater than the hourly rate pay, I was not paid the hourly rate. I was solely paid the commission. 12.

Each Loan Officer including myself was required to sign a Loan

Officer Compensation and Employment Agreement. Exhibit A to the Loan Officer Compensation and Employment Agreement sets forth the compensation schedule for the Loan Officers. Exhibit A is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 1. The footer on Exhibit A identifies it as “Exhibit A – Call Center Loan Officer Agreement – Commission Revised December 31, 2013.” 13.

Pursuant to my Loan Officer Compensation and Employment

Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit A to the same I was paid the greater of (i) an hourly wage; or (ii) a commission. If the commission for the pay period was greater than the hourly rate pay, I was not paid the hourly rate. I was solely paid the commission. This compensation policy applied to all Loan Officers employed by JGWHL. 14.

JGWHL had a policy of not accurately tracking hours worked.

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of David Dickens

Page 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E7995A1-4D98-41B2-8E35-9BA47BE7E679

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 360

reflect the overtime hours I routinely worked; the earnings statements only show commissions earned and paid. See samples of my earning statements attached hereto as Exhibits 2 and 3. Further, when I tracked and reported more than 40 hours worked on my time cards, no overtime hours showed on my paycheck and no overtime pay showed on my paycheck. 15.

I believe there are many other current and former JGWHL Loan

Officers who worked at the various Call Centers who would be interested in joining or who would join this action for unpaid overtime. I do not presently know the names, telephone numbers, and addresses of the others and because I am no longer employed by JGWHL, I no longer have access to these people or their contact information; however, I believe there are individuals who would join if they knew about the opportunity to do so. 16.

Because I and the others who have presently consented to join this

lawsuit are no longer employed with JGWHL, information about an action to recover unpaid wages is not likely to spread very well by word of mouth. I believe there is a need for a notice to be sent to all Loan Officers formerly or currently employed at the JGWHLâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Call Centers across the nation so they will learn of this action.

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of David Dickens

Page 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E7995A1-4D98-41B2-8E35-9BA47BE7E679

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 361

17.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that

the foregoing is true and correct. 12/1/2017 Executed on __________________.

______________________________ David Dickens

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of David Dickens

Page 7

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E7995A1-4D98-41B2-8E35-9BA47BE7E679

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 362

EXHIBIT 1

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E7995A1-4D98-41B2-8E35-9BA47BE7E679

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 363

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E7995A1-4D98-41B2-8E35-9BA47BE7E679

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 364

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E7995A1-4D98-41B2-8E35-9BA47BE7E679

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 365

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E7995A1-4D98-41B2-8E35-9BA47BE7E679

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 366

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E7995A1-4D98-41B2-8E35-9BA47BE7E679

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 367

EXHIBIT 2

DocuSign Envelope ID: CO. 2E7995A1-4D98-41B2-8E35-9BA47BE7E679 FILE DEPT. CLOCK VCHR. NO.

055 Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 368

ABB

600011

0E1004

0000410403

Earnings Statement

J G WENTWORTH HOME LENDING LLC 3350 COMMISSION COURT LAKE RIDGE , VA 22192

Period Beginning: Period Ending: Pay Date:

DAVID DICKENS

Taxable Marital Status: Married Exemptions/Allowances: Federal: 1 TX: No State Income Tax

rate

hours

Commission Admin Bonus Draw

this period

RICHARDSON TX 75080

year to date

9 732 61

Gross Pay

09/25/2016 10/09/2016 10/14/2016

9 732 61

70 975 500 4 500 75 975

44 00 00 44

Other Benefits and this period

Comtch

total to date

204 39

1 096 30

Statutory Federal Income Tax Social Security Tax Medicare Tax

1 535 28 577 05 134 95

8 921 66 4 250 86 994 15

Dental125 Health Savings Med Hdhp Ppo1 Vision 401K$ Med Hdhp Ppo1

16 250 156 1 1 362

311 44 4 750 00 2 317 89 33 84 7 308 71 584 01

Net Pay

5 697 49

Check1

5 697 49

Net Check

56* 00* 83* 88* 57*

24 840 42

0 00

* Excluded from federal taxable wages Your federal taxable wages this period are $7 944 77

2000 A DP, LLC

J G WENTWORTH HOME LENDING LLC 3350 COMMISSION COURT LAKE RIDGE VA 22192

Advice number:

00000410403

Pay date:

10/14/2016

Deposited

account number

to the account of

DAVID DICKENS

transit

ABA

xxxx xxxx

amount

$5 697 49

NON-NEGOTIABLE

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2E7995A1-4D98-41B2-8E35-9BA47BE7E679

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 369

EXHIBIT 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: CO. 2E7995A1-4D98-41B2-8E35-9BA47BE7E679 FILE DEPT. CLOCK VCHR. NO.

055 Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-3 Filed 12/04/17 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 370

ABB

600011

0E1004

0000480458

Earnings Statement

J G WENTWORTH HOME LENDING LLC 3350 COMMISSION COURT LAKE RIDGE , VA 22192

Period Beginning: Period Ending: Pay Date:

DAVID DICKENS

Taxable Marital Status: Married Exemptions/Allowances: Federal: 1 TX: No State Income Tax

rate

hours

Commission Admin Bonus Draw

this period

RICHARDSON TX 75080

year to date

2 224 09

Gross Pay

11/10/2016 11/24/2016 11/30/2016

2 224 09

86 861 500 4 500 91 861

08 00 00 08

Other Benefits and this period

Comtch

total to date

46 71

1 429 90

Statutory Federal Income Tax Social Security Tax Medicare Tax

105 72 111 53 26 09

Dental125 Health Savings Med Hdhp Ppo1 Vision 401K$ Med Hdhp Ppo1

16 250 156 1 311

56* 00* 83* 88* 37*

Net Pay

1 244 11

Check1

1 244 11

Net Check

11 186 84 5 156 67 1 206 00

361 12 5 500 00 2 788 38 39 48 9 532 70 584 01

33 843 42

0 00

* Excluded from federal taxable wages Your federal taxable wages this period are $1 487 45

2000 A DP, LLC

J G WENTWORTH HOME LENDING LLC 3350 COMMISSION COURT LAKE RIDGE VA 22192

Advice number:

00000480458

Pay date:

11/30/2016

Deposited

account number

to the account of

DAVID DICKENS

transit

ABA

xxxx xxxx

amount

$1 244 11

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-4 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 371

Exhibit D

DocuSign Envelope ID: 79D19E86-A7C2-41EF-8AE2-33E1C536A80B

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-4 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 372

§ § § § § § § § § § §

CA No: 4:17-cv-642-ALM-KPJ Jury Demanded

DECLARATION OF ANDREW ROBINSON PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1746 IN SUPPORT OF PROCEEDING AS A COLLECTIVE ACTION I, Andrew Robinson, make the following declaration subject to the penalties for perjury: 1.

My name is Andrew Robinson. I am an opt-in plaintiff in the above-

numbered and-styled lawsuit. I am fully competent to make this declaration, have personal knowledge of the following facts, and could testify to them if called upon to do so. 2.

I was employed by Westar Mortgage/J.G. Wentworth Home

Lending, LLC (“JGWHL”) as a loan officer (“Loan Officer”) in its Troy, Michigan office from approximately October 2014 through approximately July __________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Andrew Robinson

Page 1

DocuSign Envelope ID: 79D19E86-A7C2-41EF-8AE2-33E1C536A80B

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-4 Filed 12/04/17 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 373

2015. There were approximately 15 other Loan Officers working at or from the Troy, Michigan office during my time there. As a result of my employment with JGWHL, I have personal knowledge of and experience with the job duties of its Loan Officers and its procedures and policies for compensating its Loan Officers. 3.

JGWHL is in the business of providing home loan products to its

As a Loan Officer, my primary job responsibilities consisted of

selling JGWHL’s home loan products to individuals over the telephone and through the internet.

I did not customarily and regularly make sales at its

customers’ homes or places of business. Instead, I regularly made sales over the phone or the internet. I worked out of Defendant’s Troy, Michigan Call Center. 5.

I am aware that other Loan Officers in the Troy, Michigan office

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Andrew Robinson

Page 2

DocuSign Envelope ID: 79D19E86-A7C2-41EF-8AE2-33E1C536A80B

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-4 Filed 12/04/17 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 374

weekly company-wide Loan Officer training calls in which Loan Officers across the country were on the calls. It was discussed on these calls what our job duties were and from these calls I learned that all Loan Officer’s primary job duties were the same, i.e., to sell JGWHL’s home loan products to individuals over the telephone and through the internet. 6.

I routinely worked over 40 hours per week. I worked Monday

through Friday during office hours from anywhere between 8 and 11 hours per day. Additionally, I often worked from home in the evenings for at least two hours and I often worked on weekends too. 7.

Other Loan Officers routinely worked over 40 hours per week. I

worked side by side with Loan Officers and saw the hours they put in and saw how they were working nights and weekends in addition to a regular 40 hour work week. I and the other Loan Officers were routinely told by management that we were expected to work nights, weekends, and long hours in addition to the 40 plus hours per week we worked in the office and that this would be on our “own time” and we would not be paid overtime for it. In our weekly Loan Officer training calls, we were told that Loan Officers across the nation were expected to work overtime and not be compensated for it. Specifically, we were told by management in these calls how the Loan Officers across the country who were performing well worked nights,

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Andrew Robinson

Page 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 79D19E86-A7C2-41EF-8AE2-33E1C536A80B

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-4 Filed 12/04/17 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 375

weekends, and long hours in addition to the 40 plus hours per week they worked in the office, although they were not paid overtime for it. 8.

I was paid an hourly rate and a commission. If the commission for

the pay period was greater than the hourly rate pay, I was not paid the hourly rate. I was solely paid the commission. 9.

Each Loan Officer including myself was required to sign a Loan

Pursuant to my Loan Officer Compensation and Employment

JGWHL had a policy of not accurately tracking hours worked.

Consistent with this policy, the hours I worked were not accurately tracked or

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Andrew Robinson

Page 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: 79D19E86-A7C2-41EF-8AE2-33E1C536A80B

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-4 Filed 12/04/17 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 376

counted towards total hours worked and no overtime was paid for these hours. My bi-weekly earnings statements do not show hours worked per week and do not reflect the overtime hours I routinely worked; the earnings statements only show commissions earned and paid. See an example of my earning statements attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Further, we Loan Officers were specifically told by management that our time clocks should show only 40 hours (regardless of how many hours we actually worked) because anything above 40 did not matter as we were not paid for overtime. 12.

I believe there are many other current and former JGWHL Loan

Because I and the others who have presently consented to join this

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Andrew Robinson

Page 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 79D19E86-A7C2-41EF-8AE2-33E1C536A80B

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-4 Filed 12/04/17 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 377

employed at the JGWHL’s Call Centers across the nation so they will learn of this action. 14.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that

the foregoing is true and correct. 12/1/2017 Executed on __________________.

______________________________ Andrew Robinson

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Andrew Robinson

Page 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: 79D19E86-A7C2-41EF-8AE2-33E1C536A80B

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-4 Filed 12/04/17 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 378

EXHIBIT 1

DocuSign Envelope ID: 79D19E86-A7C2-41EF-8AE2-33E1C536A80B

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-4 Filed 12/04/17 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 379

DocuSign Envelope ID: 79D19E86-A7C2-41EF-8AE2-33E1C536A80B

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-4 Filed 12/04/17 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 380

DocuSign Envelope ID: 79D19E86-A7C2-41EF-8AE2-33E1C536A80B

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-4 Filed 12/04/17 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 381

DocuSign Envelope ID: 79D19E86-A7C2-41EF-8AE2-33E1C536A80B

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-4 Filed 12/04/17 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 382

DocuSign Envelope ID: 79D19E86-A7C2-41EF-8AE2-33E1C536A80B

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-4 Filed 12/04/17 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 383

EXHIBIT 2

Earnings Statement

ANDREW ROBINSON

DocuSign Envelope ID: 79D19E86-A7C2-41EF-8AE2-33E1C536A80B

Pay Date: 07/15/2015 Company: 0I661 - WESTSTAR MORTGAGE INC 17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-4 Filed 12/04/17

EmpPageID #: A0C4 Page 14 of 14

Period Start: 06/25/2015 3350 COMMISSION CT Period End: 07/09/2015 LAKE RIDGE, VA 22192

Earnings Commiss Overrides

Dept: E1003 (703) 643-1002

Rate Hours/Units

Gross Pay W/H Taxes Federal W/H (M/4) Medicare Social Security Michigan State W/H (C/4) Deductions 401k EE Contribution % Anthem Health

Net Pay Net Pay Distribution Direct Deposit Net Check

Employee Benefits 401k EE Contribution % - Match

Pay Basis: Commission

Current Period 7016.84 2499.95

Year to Date 74109.86 10237.12

9516.79

84346.98

1536.07 130.63

13393.22 1135.41

558.55 330.28

4854.88 2845.20

571.01 507.94

3520.27 6042.46

5882.31

52555.54 Voucher No.: 8016343DD

5882.31

52555.54 A/C:2886

Current Period 85.65

Year To Date YTD Taken Available 528.05 *Company Match

Voucher No.: 8016343DD WESTSTAR MORTGAGE INC 3350 COMMISSION CT WOODBRIDGE, VA 22192

Net Pay:

DATE: 07/15/2015

$ 5882.31

Five Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Two And 31/100 Dollars ANDREW ROBINSON For Record Purposes Only

**NON-NEGOTIABLE**

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 385

Exhibit E

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C92190F-1162-477C-BEBE-1893925A31C7

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 386

§ § § § § § § § § § §

CA No: 4:17-cv-642-ALM-KPJ Jury Demanded

DECLARATION OF ROBERT STAAB PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1746 IN SUPPORT OF PROCEEDING AS A COLLECTIVE ACTION I, Robert Staab, make the following declaration subject to the penalties for perjury: 1.

My name is Robert Staab. I am an opt-in plaintiff in the above-

numbered and-styled lawsuit. I am fully competent to make this declaration, have personal knowledge of the following facts, and could testify to them if called upon to do so. 2.

I was employed by J.G. Wentworth Home Lending, LLC

(“JGWHL”) as a loan officer (“Loan Officer”) in its Boca Raton, Florida office from approximately January 18, 2016 to approximately November 30, 2016. There __________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Robert Staab

Page 1

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C92190F-1162-477C-BEBE-1893925A31C7

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 387

were approximately 60 other Loan Officers working at or from the Boca Raton, Florida office during my time there. As a result of my employment with JGWHL, I have personal knowledge of and experience with the job duties of its Loan Officers and its procedures and policies for compensating its Loan Officers. 3.

JGWHL is in the business of providing home loan products to its

As a Loan Officer, my primary job responsibilities consisted of

selling JGWHL’s home loan products to individuals over the telephone and through the internet.

I did not customarily and regularly make sales at its

customers’ homes or places of business. Instead, I regularly made sales over the phone or the internet. I worked out of Defendant’s Boca Raton, Florida Call Center. 5.

I am aware that other Loan Officers in the Boca Raton, Florida

office performed similar job duties as I did for JGWHL. I am aware of this fact because I worked side by side with such Loan Officers and saw the work that they did. Additionally, I am aware that other Loan Officers across the nation performed

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Robert Staab

Page 2

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C92190F-1162-477C-BEBE-1893925A31C7

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 388

similar job duties as I did for JGWHL. I am aware of this fact because I attended weekly company-wide Loan Officer training calls in which Loan Officers across the country were on the calls. It was discussed on these calls what our job duties were and from these calls I learned that all Loan Officer’s primary job duties were the same, i.e., to sell JGWHL’s home loan products to individuals over the telephone and through the internet. 6.

I routinely worked over 40 hours per week. I worked Monday

through Friday 10 to 15 hours a day. Additionally, I often worked at least 5 to 7 hours on the weekends too. 7.

Other Loan Officers routinely worked over 40 hours per week. I

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Robert Staab

Page 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C92190F-1162-477C-BEBE-1893925A31C7

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 389

weekends, and long hours in addition to the 40 plus hours per week they worked in the office, although they were not paid overtime for it. 8.

I was paid an hourly rate and a commission. If the commission for

the pay period was greater than the hourly rate pay, I was not paid the hourly rate. I was solely paid the commission. 9.

Each Loan Officer including myself was required to sign a Loan

Pursuant to my Loan Officer Compensation and Employment

JGWHL had a policy of not accurately tracking hours worked.

Consistent with this policy, the hours I worked were not accurately tracked or

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Robert Staab

Page 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C92190F-1162-477C-BEBE-1893925A31C7

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 390

counted towards total hours worked and no overtime was paid for these hours. My bi-weekly earnings statements do not show hours worked per week and do not reflect the overtime hours I routinely worked; the earnings statements only show commissions earned and paid. See an example of my earning statements attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Further, it was made clear to me by my superiors that it did not matter how many hours I and the other Loan Officers worked and recorded because we were not paid overtime. 12.

I believe there are many other current and former JGWHL Loan

Because I and the others who have presently consented to join this

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Robert Staab

Page 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C92190F-1162-477C-BEBE-1893925A31C7

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 391

employed at the JGWHL’s Call Centers across the nation so they will learn of this action. 14.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that

the foregoing is true and correct.

12/2/2017 Executed on ___________________.

______________________________ Robert Staab

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Robert Staab

Page 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C92190F-1162-477C-BEBE-1893925A31C7

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 392

EXHIBIT 1

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C92190F-1162-477C-BEBE-1893925A31C7

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 393

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C92190F-1162-477C-BEBE-1893925A31C7

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 394

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C92190F-1162-477C-BEBE-1893925A31C7

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 395

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C92190F-1162-477C-BEBE-1893925A31C7

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 396

DocuSign Envelope ID: 6C92190F-1162-477C-BEBE-1893925A31C7

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 397

EXHIBIT 2

CO. FILE DEPT. CLOCK VCHR. NO. 055 Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-5 Filed 12/04/17 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 398

ABB

600040

0E1001

0000520430

Earnings Statement

J G WENTWORTH HOME LENDING LLC 3350 COMMISSION COURT LAKE RIDGE , VA 22192

Period Beginning: Period Ending: Pay Date:

ROBERT STAAB 8200 SW 13TH STREET NORTH LAUDERDALE FL 33068

Taxable Marital Status: Single Exemptions/Allowances: Federal: 1 FL: No State Income Tax

rate

hours

Commission Regular Overtime Admin Bonus Draw Pto

this period

2 844 00

year to date

2 844 00

31 359 95 13 894 27 9 61 1 892 50 3 498 45 865 50 51 520 28

Federal Income Tax Social Security Tax Medicare Tax

419 99 172 94 40 45

7 252 24 3 128 52 731 67

Dental125 Health Savings Med Hdhp Ppo1 401K$ Accident Insura Hospital Confin Med Hdhp Ppo1

3 25 26 142

64 500 421 1 667 15 58 105

Gross Pay

12/10/2016 12/24/2016 12/30/2016

Your federal taxable wages this period are $2 647 21

Other Benefits and this period

Comtch Hlth Pln Value

total to date

21 33 4 365 90

250 18

Statutory

22* 00* 37* 20*

Net Pay

2 013 83

Check1

2 013 83

Net Check

40 00 92 92 84 08 48

25 334 31

0 00

* Excluded from federal taxable wages 2000 A DP, LLC

J G WENTWORTH HOME LENDING LLC 3350 COMMISSION COURT LAKE RIDGE VA 22192

Advice number:

00000520430

Pay date:

12/30/2016

Deposited

account number

to the account of

ROBERT STAAB

transit

ABA

xxxx xxxx

amount

$2 013 83

NON-NEGOTIABLE

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-6 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 399

Exhibit F

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB4CEF1B-AF93-46F3-B84B-92C7B8B214D8

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-6 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 400

§ § § § § § § § § § §

CA No: 4:17-cv-642-ALM-KPJ Jury Demanded

DECLARATION OF XAVIER MARTINEZ PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1746 IN SUPPORT OF PROCEEDING AS A COLLECTIVE ACTION I, Xavier Martinez, make the following declaration subject to the penalties for perjury: 1.

My name is Xavier Martinez. I am interested in joining the above-

numbered and-styled lawsuit, and plan on doing so shortly. I am fully competent to make this declaration, have personal knowledge of the following facts, and could testify to them if called upon to do so. 2.

I was employed by J.G. Wentworth Home Lending, LLC

(“JGWHL”) as a loan officer (“Loan Officer”) in its Plano, Texas office from approximately September 2016 to approximately September 2017. As a result of __________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Xavier Martinez

Page 1

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB4CEF1B-AF93-46F3-B84B-92C7B8B214D8

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-6 Filed 12/04/17 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 401

my employment with JGWHL, I have personal knowledge of and experience with the job duties of its Loan Officers and its procedures and policies for compensating its Loan Officers. 3.

JGWHL is in the business of providing home loan products to its

As a Loan Officer, my primary job responsibilities consisted of

selling JGWHL’s home loan products to individuals over the telephone and through the internet.

I did not customarily and regularly make sales at its

customers’ homes or places of business. Instead, I regularly made sales over the phone or the internet. I worked out of Defendant’s Plano, Texas Call Center. 5.

I am aware that other Loan Officers in the Plano, Texas office

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Xavier Martinez

Page 2

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB4CEF1B-AF93-46F3-B84B-92C7B8B214D8

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-6 Filed 12/04/17 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 402

country were on the calls. It was discussed on these calls what our job duties were and from these calls I learned that all Loan Officer’s primary job duties were the same, i.e., to sell JGWHL’s home loan products to individuals over the telephone and through the internet. 6.

I routinely worked over 40 hours per week. I worked Monday

through Friday during normal office hours. Additionally, I often worked from home in the evenings and I often worked on weekends too. 7.

Other Loan Officers routinely worked over 40 hours per week. I

worked side by side with Loan Officers and saw the hours they put in and saw how they were working nights and weekends in addition to a regular 40-hour work week. I and the other Loan Officers were routinely told by management that we were expected to work nights, weekends, and long hours in addition to the 40 plus hours per week we worked in the office and that this would be on our “own time” and we would not be paid overtime for it. In our weekly Loan Officer training calls, we were told that Loan Officers across the nation were expected to work overtime and not be compensated for it. Specifically, we were told by management in these calls how the Loan Officers across the country who were performing well worked nights, weekends, and long hours in addition to the 40 plus hours per week they worked in the office, although they were not paid overtime for it.

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Xavier Martinez

Page 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB4CEF1B-AF93-46F3-B84B-92C7B8B214D8

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-6 Filed 12/04/17 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 403

Additionally, almost daily, I and other Loan Officers nationwide

I was paid an hourly rate and a commission. If the commission for

the pay period was greater than the hourly rate pay, I was not paid the hourly rate. I was solely paid the commission. 10.

Each Loan Officer including myself was required to sign a Loan

Pursuant to my Loan Officer Compensation and Employment

Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit A to the same I was paid the greater of (i) an hourly wage; or (ii) a commission. If the commission for the pay period was greater

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Xavier Martinez

Page 4

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB4CEF1B-AF93-46F3-B84B-92C7B8B214D8

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-6 Filed 12/04/17 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 404

than the hourly rate pay, I was not paid the hourly rate. I was solely paid the commission. This compensation policy applied to all Loan Officers employed by JGWHL. 12.

JGWHL had a policy of not accurately tracking hours worked.

Consistent with this policy, the hours I worked were not accurately tracked or counted towards total hours worked and no overtime was paid for these hours. My bi-weekly earnings statements do not show hours worked per week and do not reflect the overtime hours I routinely worked; the earnings statements only show commissions earned and paid. See an example of my earning statements attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Further, I was specifically told by management that my time card would be changed to show not more than 40 hours worked in a workweek because I was not going to be paid for it anyway. 13.

I found out about this lawsuit from discussions with David Dickens,

with whom I formerly worked at JGWHL. I would like to join as a plaintiff if the Court allows me to do so. I believe there are many other current and former JGWHL Loan Officers who worked at the various Call Centers who would be interested in joining or who would join this action for unpaid overtime. I do not presently know the names, telephone numbers, and addresses of the others and because I am no longer employed by JGWHL, I no longer have access to these

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Xavier Martinez

Page 5

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB4CEF1B-AF93-46F3-B84B-92C7B8B214D8

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-6 Filed 12/04/17 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 405

people or their contact information; however, I believe there are individuals who would join if they knew about the opportunity to do so. 14.

Because I and the others who have presently consented to join this

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that

the foregoing is true and correct. 12/2/2017 Executed on ______________.

______________________________ Xavier Martinez

__________________________________________________________________ Declaration of Xavier Martinez

Page 6

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB4CEF1B-AF93-46F3-B84B-92C7B8B214D8

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-6 Filed 12/04/17 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 406

EXHIBIT 1

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB4CEF1B-AF93-46F3-B84B-92C7B8B214D8

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-6 Filed 12/04/17 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 407

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB4CEF1B-AF93-46F3-B84B-92C7B8B214D8

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-6 Filed 12/04/17 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 408

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB4CEF1B-AF93-46F3-B84B-92C7B8B214D8

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-6 Filed 12/04/17 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 409

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB4CEF1B-AF93-46F3-B84B-92C7B8B214D8

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-6 Filed 12/04/17 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 410

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB4CEF1B-AF93-46F3-B84B-92C7B8B214D8

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-6 Filed 12/04/17 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 411

EXHIBIT 2

CO. FILE DEPT. CLOCK VCHR. NO. 055 Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-6 Filed 12/04/17 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 412

ABB

600161

0E1004

J G WENTWORTH

0000370468

HOME LENDING

3350 COMMISSION

Earnings Statement

Period Beginning: Period Ending: Pay Date:

LLC

COURT

LAKE RIDGE , VA 22192

XAVIER MARTINEZ

Taxable Marital Status: Married Exemptions/Allowances: Federal: 1 TX: No State Income Tax

rate

hours

Commission

this period

PLANO TX 75024

year to date

2 441 97 $2 441 97

18 478 94 18 478 94

Statutory Federal Income Tax Social Security Tax Medicare Tax

−217 54 −146 35 −34 23

876 09 1 062 43 248 47

Dental125 Med−Networkppo2 Vision 401K$

−3 −78 −0 −122

54 1 284 3 923

Gross Pay

Net Pay Check1

22* 07* 20* 10*

$1 840 26 −1 840 26

Net Check

08/25/2017 09/09/2017 09/15/2017

Other Benefits and this period

Comtch

total to date

18 32

138 61

74 75 54 94

14 024 98

$0 00

Excluded from federal taxable wages Your federal taxable wages this period are $2 238 38

î 2000 A DP, LLC

J G WENTWORTH HOME LENDING LLC 3350 COMMISSION COURT LAKE RIDGE VA 22192

Advice number: Pay date:

Deposited

account number

to the account of

XAVIER MARTINEZ

00000370468 09/15/2017

transit

ABA

xxxx xxxx

amount

$1 840 26

NON−NEGOTIABLE

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-7 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 413

Exhibit G

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-7 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 414

NOTICE of COLLECTIVE ACTION OVERTIME LAWSUIT and OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN Why Did I Get This Notice?

Can I be Retaliated Against?

You have been identified as an individual that worked for J. G. Wentworth Home Lending, LLC (“Wentworth”) or West Star Mortgage, Inc. as a Loan Officer, or other mortgage sales person (“Loan Officer”) between [TBD] and the present. If you have received this Notice, you may be eligible to join this lawsuit.

No. It is unlawful for Wentworth or your current employer to terminate your employment or take any adverse action, as defined by the law, against you as a result of your participation in this suit.

What’s This About? A former Wentworth Loan Officer filed a lawsuit that seeks to recover overtime pay for working more than 40 hours in a workweek. The lawsuit claims that Loan Officers worked more than 40 hours in most, if not all, weeks; but, because they were paid on a Commission basis, they did not receive overtime pay. You are eligible to join this lawsuit if you worked more than 40 hours in any week without receiving overtime pay or your Commission was not used to calculate your overtime pay. Wentworth contends that it properly paid Loan Officers and contends that it does not owe any overtime wages. This Court has not decided whether Wentworth failed to pay overtime wages. Plaintiff in this lawsuit must prove his claim at trial unless the case is settled. What Can I Get? If you join this lawsuit and the Loan Officers settle the case or win, you and the other plaintiffs may get an amount up to two times the unpaid overtime wages you and they should have received as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

How Do I Make a Claim? If you want to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff, fill out the enclosed Consent to Join form and mail it back in the enclosed envelop; email it back or fax it back. It must be emailed to Mr. Miltenberger or received in Mr. Miltenberger’s office by [TBD]. You can also sign by DocuSign. What Are My Choices? If you choose to join in this case, you will be bound by the result in this case, whether it is favorable or unfavorable. If you join the case, you will not have to pay the lawyers anything out of pocket, win or lose. Mr. Miltenberger is representing the Loan Officers on a contingency fee basis. If you do not wish to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff, you are free to take action on you own or do nothing. Can I Get More Information? To learn more, you can call the Loan Officers’ attorneys at 1-817-416-5060. The call is confidential. Or write or email Mr. Miltenberger at: Law Office of Chris R. Miltenberger, PLLC Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. 1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100 Southlake, Texas 76092 Phone: 817-416-5060 Fax: 817-416-5062 chris@crmlawpractice.com

The United States District Court in Sherman approved this Notice but takes no position on the merits of the case.

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-8 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 415

Exhibit H

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-8 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 416

§ § § § § § § § § §

Civil Action No: 4:17-cv-642-ALM-KPJ

Jury Demanded

CONSENT TO JOIN •

I consent to become a party plaintiff and join a lawsuit against J. G. Wentworth Home Lending LLC (“Defendant”) seeking damages for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. I was employed by Defendant as a loan officer or like position in the last three years, worked more than 40 hours a week and was not paid overtime.

•

By my signature below, I authorize and designate David Dickens and his attorneys as my representatives to make all decisions on my behalf concerning the method and manner of conducting the case including settlement, the entering of an agreement with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding payment of attorneys' fees and court costs, releasing of claims, and all other matters pertaining to this lawsuit.

•

I acknowledge that this Consent Form is intended to be filed to recover wages I believe I am owed, whether in the case in which this consent is initially filed or if due to unforeseen procedural matters, in any subsequent related suit to be filed on my behalf seeking recovery from Defendant.

•

I understand that while I have the right to choose other counsel and to pursue my claims on my own behalf, I choose and agree to be represented by Chris R. Miltenberger of the Law Office of Chris R. Miltenberger, PLLC and Jack Siegel of the Siegel Law Group PLLC, counsel for the named Plaintiff.

__________________ Date

___________________________ Signature ___________________________ Printed Name

_______________________________________________________________________________

Consent to Join Lawsuit

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-8 Filed 12/04/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 417

PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: This information will NOT be made part of any public record and is necessary for your attorneyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s files for litigation and possible settlement purposes. Name: Mailing Address: City, State & Zip Code: Social Security No. (or last 4 digits): Cellular Telephone: E-Mail Address: Work Location: Beginning Date of Employment: Ending Date of Employment:

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-9 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 418

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Texas Sherman Division

David Dickens, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. J. G. Wentworth Home Lending LLC, Defendant

§ § § § § § § § § §

CA No: 4:17-cv-642-ALM-KPJ Jury Demanded

[Proposed Order on] Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and Conditional Certification

On this day the Court considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and Conditional Certification. The Court finds that Plaintiff has come forward with sufficient evidence to warrant conditional certification of a collective action and notice to potential class members. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice to Potential Plaintiffs and Conditional Certification (Dkt. #___) is hereby GRANTED. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Court conditionally certifies a class of Defendant’s current and former employees that is described as follows and referred to herein as the “Workers”: All persons who are or have been employed by J.G. Wentworth Home Lending, L.L.C. (“JGWHL”) or WestStar Mortgage, Inc. within the United States as “Loan Officers,” “Mortgage Loan Officers,” “Mortgage

Proposed Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice - Page | 1

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-9 Filed 12/04/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 419

Bankers,” “Loan Originators,” “Mortgage Loan Originators” or any other like mortgage sales employee at any time during the three-year period preceding the date of this Order.

It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Notice and Consent to Join Form presented to the Court as Exhibits G and H to Docket #___ is conditionally approved, subject to Plaintiff’s insertion of the appropriate dates. Defendant is ordered to produce the names, last known addresses, and email addresses (“Worker Information”) of current and former Workers. Defendant shall provide the Worker Information in an Excel or similar electronic format within seven (7) days of the entry of this Order. Plaintiff’s Counsel shall send the Notice and Consent Form to the Workers within fourteen (14) days after Defendant provides the Worker Information to Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court authorizes Plaintiff to immediately issue the Notice and Consent Form to those individuals whose names are being provided as required by this Order. Plaintiff may issue the Notice and Consent forms by U.S. mail and email. Plaintiff may provide a self-addressed, postage paid return envelope. Plaintiff’s counsel is also authorized to provide to the Workers the Notice and Consent Form electronically through DocuSign. Plaintiff shall bear the cost of issuing the Notice and Consent forms and any reminder notice.

Proposed Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice - Page | 2

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-9 Filed 12/04/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 420

The Workers shall be provided sixty (60) days after the date the Notice and Consent forms are mailed (the “Opt-In Period”) to file a Consent to Join form opting-in to this litigation, unless the Parties agree to permit late filings. Any remailing of the original notice and any reminder notices shall not extend this deadline. Plaintiff shall inform opposing counsel as to the date on which the Notice forms were sent to the Workers. Plaintiff’s counsel may send a reminder notice thirty (30) days before the expiration of the Opt-In Period, provided the parties agree upon the text of the reminder. Plaintiff’s counsel or a third-party administrator shall date stamp the returned Consent Forms on the day they are received (the “Received Date”) and retain any envelope or other evidence showing the date the Consent Form was postmarked or fax-stamped. For purposes of the statute of limitations, the Received Date will be the date the Consent Forms are considered to be filed with the Court. Plaintiff’s counsel shall file the signed consent forms with the Court after the close of the Opt-In Period. All consent forms received by Plaintiff’s counsel by or postmarked or fax-stamped on or before the end of the Opt-In Period will be considered timely. Within thirty (30) days after the close of the Opt-In period, the Parties are directed to confer pursuant to Rule 16(b) to present the Court with a proposed Joint Scheduling Order setting forth proposed dates and covering the items set forth in

Proposed Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice - Page | 3

Case 4:17-cv-00642-ALM-KPJ Document 28-9 Filed 12/04/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 421

the Court’s previous Order Governing Proceedings. The proposed Joint Scheduling Order should set forth the Parties’ agreements concerning how discovery will proceed and how the case will proceed at trial. If the Parties cannot agree on elements of the Proposed Scheduling Order, they may present their views in the submission for Court determination. The Parties must file the Joint Scheduling Report and Case Management Plan within fourteen (14) days of the deadline for the Parties to confer.

Proposed Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Notice - Page | 4