DEASY, et al. vs WMK, LLC, et al.

23CV005712: DEASY, et al. vs WMK, LLC, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

On March 2, 2026, the Parties entered into a written settlement agreement. (Yslas Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. 2 (“Agreement”).)

This hearing was initially set to be heard May 15, 2026, but was continued to July 10, 2026, due to language in Paragraph 6.5 of the Agreement which stated:

6.5 Enjoining of Claims. The Preliminary Approval order will include a provision enjoining Class Members from filing claims before the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), or from initiating other proceedings regarding the Released Claims against the Released Parties until they opt out of the Settlement Class; this provision is intended to provide all Class Members the opportunity to participate in or to opt out of the Settlement, and to ensure finality of the Settlement and the Released Class Claims to the fullest extent permitted by law. (Yslas Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. 2.) (5/15/26 Order.)

In continuing the hearing, the Court ordered:

Plaintiffs may file the revised settlement agreement or a supplemental brief of not more than 5 pages in length, if they wish to address above issue, by no later than June 29, 2026. Defendants may file a response of not more than 5 pages in length by no later than July 6, 2026. (Ibid. [emphasis in original].)

On June 29, 2026, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a supplemental declaration, attaching a revised settlement agreement, and which removed paragraph 6.5. (Miller Suppl. Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. 2 (“Amended Agreement”).)

The Parties now move for preliminary approval of the class and representative settlement. This ruling incorporates by reference the definitions in the Agreement and Amended Agreement, and all capitalized terms defined therein shall have the same meaning in this ruling as set forth in the Agreement and Amended Agreement.

Settlement Class Certification

Plaintiffs move to certify the following settlement Class: all persons who worked for any Defendant in California as an hourly paid or non-exempt employee at any time during the period from January 31, 2019, through October 18, 2025. (Amended Agreement, ¶¶ 1.5, 1.13.)

There are approximately 239 Class Members. (Yslas Decl., ¶ 9.) The Parties stipulated to certification for settlement purposes. (Amended Agreement, ¶ 12.1.) The Court preliminarily certifies the proposed class for settlement purposes only.

Aggrieved Employees

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005712: DEASY, et al. vs WMK, LLC, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

An Aggrieved Employee is defined to mean, “all persons who worked for any Defendant in California as an hourly-paid or non-exempt employee at any time during the PAGA Period.” (Amended Agreement, ¶ 1.4.) The PAGA Period is defined to mean April 17, 2023 through October 18, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 1.33.)

PAGA Members will receive an Individual PAGA Payment regardless of whether they opt out of the settlement’s class component. (Id. at ¶ 7.5.4, Exh. A (“Class Notice”) at p. 4.) Plaintiffs’ counsel gave notice of the settlement to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”). (Yslas Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. 3.)

Class Representative

Plaintiffs are preliminarily appointed as Class Representative for settlement purposes only.

Class Counsel

The Court preliminarily appoints John G. Yslas and Jeffrey C. Bils of Wilshire Law Firm, PLC, as Class Counsel for settlement purposes only.

Settlement Administrator

The Court approves Apex Class Action LLC as the Settlement Administrator.

Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable Settlement

The Court must find a settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable” before approving a class action settlement. (Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244-245.) The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair, adequate, and reasonable. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) In making its fairness determination, the Court considers the strength of the Plaintiff’s case, the risk, expenses, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the state of the proceedings, and the experience and views of counsel. (Id. at p. 1801.)

In approving a class action settlement, the Court must “satisfy itself that the class settlement is within the ‘ballpark’ of reasonableness.” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 133.)

This is a non-reversionary, opt out settlement. Defendants will pay the Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $675,000. (Agreement, ¶¶ 1.23, 3.1.) Defendants will separately pay the employer portion of payroll taxes owed on the wage portions of the Individual Class Payments. (Id. at ¶ 3.1.) The following will be paid out of the GSA: (1) a service payment to Plaintiffs of not more

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005712: DEASY, et al. vs WMK, LLC, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

than $10,000, each ($20,000 total); (2) attorneys’ fees award equaling not more than 35% of the GSA (estimated to be $236,250) and litigation expenses payment not to exceed $26,000 to Class Counsel; (3) settlement administration costs not to exceed $6,990, absent good cause; (4) Individual Class Member payments; and (5) a PAGA Penalty of $67,500 —75% of which ($50,625) will be paid to the LWDA and 25% of which ($16,875) will be paid to Aggrieved Employees). (Amended Agreement, ¶¶ 3.1-3.2.)

Plaintiffs’ Counsel states that the Agreement’s Escalator Clause (Agreement, ¶ 8) has not been triggered. (Yslas Decl., ¶ 38.)

For tax purposes, Class Member’s Individual Payments will be treated as 20% wages and 80% penalties and interest. (Amended Agreement, ¶ 3.2.4.1.) PAGA payments will be treated as penalties. (Notice, p. 4.) Class Members have 60 days to respond to the Class Notice, plus an additional 14 days for Class Members whose Class Notice was re-mailed. (Agreement, ¶¶ 1.44.) Pursuant to the Amended Agreement, for any Class Member whose Individual Class Payment check or Individual PAGA Payment check is uncashed and canceled after the Void Date, “the Administrator shall transmit the funds represented by such checks to Bridge to Mobility, the Parties’ mutually agreed-upon cy pres recipient, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 284(b), and as approved by the Court.” (Id. at ¶ 4.4.3.)

The Court notes, while it preliminarily approves the Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees award, equaling 35% of the GSA, the Court will typically not award more than one third of the GSA at the time of final approval.

Disposition

The Court preliminarily finds that all relevant factors support settlement approval. (Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.) The papers demonstrate the settlement was reached after arms-length bargaining between the parties and was reached after sufficient discovery and negotiations, which allowed the Parties, and therefore, this Court, to act intelligently with respect to the settlement. Class Counsel conducted an investigation into the facts and law and issues in this case, including the exchange of informal discovery and the review of relevant information. The settlement appears to be within the “ballpark of reasonableness.” (Yslas Decl., ¶¶ 8-20.) Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

Again, the Court notes, while it preliminarily approves the Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees award, equaling 35% of the GSA, the Court will typically not award more than one third of the GSA at the time of final approval.

The Court also approves the proposed Class Notice subject to the Parties amending the final approval hearing location as noted at the beginning of this ruling. The Notice shall be disseminated as provided in the Agreement.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005712: DEASY, et al. vs WMK, LLC, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

The Final Approval Hearing will take place on November 13, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 8A.

The Court will sign the Proposed Order submitted with the moving papers.

Plaintiffs must include any request for attorneys’ fees, costs, and the service award in the final approval motion, not a separately filed motion.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8A at (916) 874-5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

If oral argument is requested, the parties may appear by Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom link – https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16108301121 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 / ID: 16108301121

Counsel for Plaintiffs is directed to notice all parties of this order.

Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement is scheduled for 11/13/2026 at 09:00 AM in Department 8A at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.