Dang vs. Allegis Group, Inc.

jurisdiction over the state law claims. As a result, the merits challenges raised by Defendants State Bar of California, et al. and Tyler Technologies, Inc. remain unresolved, as does the State Bar Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. While leave to amend should be liberally granted, Plaintiffs may no longer amend as a matter of right. The Court believes Defendants’ merits challenges, and the State Bar Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, should be resolved before deciding whether further amendment is proper. As Magistrate Judge McCormick noted in his report and recommendation, the current pleading is Plaintiffs’ third attempt in this case to bring viable claims. The motion is therefore denied without prejudice to Plaintiffs seeking leave to amend following resolution of the pleadings challenges not addressed in federal court. At the hearing, the parties should be prepared to discuss how these pleadings challenges will proceed. In addition, to ensure a proper record of proceedings, Plaintiffs are ordered to separately file by May 26, 2026 the 2AC previously filed in federal court. To avoid any confusion, in the event the Court allows a further amended complaint, it shall be labeled as the Third Amended Complaint. 5 Dang vs. Allegis Group, Inc.

2017-00903358

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions Of Complaint Motion continued to 07/10/2026 at 09:00 a.m. in Department CX101.

10:00 AM 6 SALDIVAR TORRES vs. GMRI, INC.

2024-01434800

Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval of Class Settlement For the reasons set forth below, the Court intends to grant the motion for approval of the parties’ PAGA settlement. However, this is conditioned on the parties agreeing to exclude Labor Code § 1102.5 from the scope of the PAGA predicates released. If the parties are unwilling to make this change to the agreement, the Court is inclined to deny approval. Assuming the parties agree to submit a revised settlement agreement (and corresponding revisions to the notice), the Court will hold a further hearing on June 5, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX101 to finalize awards of attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, administrative expenses, and a service award for Plaintiff. In advance of the hearing, Plaintiff is to submit a declaration by May 27, 2026 addressing the service award factors discussed in Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251 and Clark v. Am. Residential Servs. LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785. GROUNDS FOR RULING I. Garcia and Rodriguez Objections The Court previously denied the motion of the Garcia and Rodriguez plaintiffs (collectively, “Objectors”) to intervene, citing Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664. Despite this, Objectors