LOPEZ VS LIFEKIND FOUNDATION

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME SCHULTZ VS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY METROPOLITAN CVRI2304898 APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION WAREHOUSE & SETTLEMENT DELIVERY CORP. Tentative Ruling: Appearances requested to discuss:

1. Bibyan declaration is unsigned.

2. Was a bidding process used to select the proposed settlement administrator and was Phoenix the low bidder?

3. How many aggrieved employees? (Same as number of class members”) 4. Is the Moon firm aware of any other cases making similar claims?

5. Is defense counsel aware of any other cases making similar claims—no declaration. 6. “Released parties” broader than CMO—anyone we should name in particular?

7. Need to attach to the proposed order the notice and related opt out and objection forms—have such forms been prepared?

8. Order should require objection/opt out forms to be returned to the administrator (and not the Court).

9. Need to select date for hearing on final approval & add to order that if the hearing is continued the administrator will notify any class member who objected.

10. Add to order that administrator will file a declaration authenticating any opt out or objection forms received.

11. Add to notice range of payments to class members.

12. Revise notice to include the filing date of the declaration to which the settlement agreement is attached (March 2).

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME COREA FONTES VS MOTION TO AMEND CLASS CVRI2403976 SHAMROCK FOODS ACTION COMPLAINT COMPANY Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling, appearances requested.

3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME LOPEZ VS LIFEKIND DEMURRER ON COMPLAINT FOR

FOUNDATION OTHER EMPLOYMENT Tentative Ruling: Appearances requested; it does not appear that an opposition or amended complaint was filed, but that may be because the clerk’s office has not finished processing such a document.