JEFFREY LINDQUIST vs TUMI STORES INC

The Court grants leave for the parties to file the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to the Amended Agreement. Plaintiff is ordered to file the Second Amended Complaint prior to submitting a revised proposed order granting preliminary approval in accordance with this ruling. Subject to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, the Court GRANTS the Motion as follows: 1. Summary of Proposed and Preliminarily Approved Monetary Terms.

Description Proposed Preliminarily Approved Gross Settlement Amount $300,000 $300,000 Less: Attorney Fees (not to exceed) $100,000 $100,000 Less: Costs (not to exceed) $20,000 $20,000 Less: Administrative Costs (not to exceed) $7,490.00 $7,490 Less: PAGA Penalties $22,500 $22,500 Less: Incentive Award $7,000 $4,000 Net Settlement Before PAGA add-back $143,010 $146,010 Plus 35% of PAGA Penalty to Aggrieved $7,875 $7,875 Employees (Split 65% / 35%)1 Net Settlement After PAGA add-back (35% of $150,885 $153,885 penalty) 2. Timely Service. The Motion was timely served on all parties, to include service of the Motion and settlement agreement on the LWDA. (Labor Code § 2699(s)(2); Code Civ. Proc. § 1005, 1010.6.)

3. Conformity with Rules of Court. The Rules of Court govern the length and format of law and motion papers, to include that no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages absent leave of court (See Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1113(d).); the font must be at least 12 points (Cal. R. Ct., rule 2.104); conforming exhibits that are appropriately indexed, tabbed or bookmarked, and paginated (Cal. R. Ct., rules, 2.256(b) and 3.1110(f).) Counsel’s compliance with these rules greatly aids in the review of papers filed with the Court, and also avoids delay in the Court’s issuance of a decision on the merits.

Noncompliance with these rules may cause delay in approval, or the Court to disregard noncompliant materials. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 187 & 128; see also Bozzi v. Nordstrom (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [trial court has broad discretion to refuse to consider papers that do not comply with rule 3.1300(d)].) Plaintiff’s moving papers do not comply with the rules, e.g., the moving papers well exceed the page limit, and Supplemental Declaration of Kelsey Szamet attaches Exhibits A through I are not bookmarked or paginated.

Notwithstanding this deficiency the Court will exercise its discretion to consider them. Counsel is admonished to follow the rules in connection with future filings.

1 Effective for PAGA Notices filed before June 19, 2024, penalties recovered are allocated 75%

(LWDA) / 25% (Aggrieved Employees). For PAGA Notices filed on or after June 19, 2024, penalties recovered are allocated 65% (LWDA) / 35% (Aggrieved Employees). (Labor Code § 2699(m).)

2024CUOE029752: JEFFREY LINDQUIST vs TUMI STORES INC

4. Fairness of Settlement. The Court has reviewed the motion, all supporting documents filed in support thereof, and finds that Plaintiff has met its burden to show that the settlement was obtained after an arms-length negotiation, and is fair, adequate and reasonable. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801 [adequacy and reasonableness factors include consideration of case strengths, risks, and posture; settlement amount; experience of counsel].) The Court finds that the allocation between Class Claims and PAGA claims are now fair with the modified allocation. (Moniz v.

Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77.) Further, the Court finds that the scope of the release contained in the settlement agreement is now fairly tailored to those that were or could be asserted in the lawsuit based on the facts alleged in the complaint. (Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 538-39.)

5. Conditional Class Certification. The Court is satisfied that the proposed class should be certified for purposes of settlement as Plaintiff has met the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 382 [ascertainability, numerosity, well-defined community of interest].)

The class and aggrieved employees for purposes of the PAGA claim are defined as: “all persons who worked as an hourly, non-exempt employee in California for Tumi Stores, Inc., between June 20, 2023, and September 16, 2025.”

Plaintiff has analyzed the range of liability, the risks associated with litigation, and have provided information regarding the number of class members/aggrieved employees together with the average payout per employee, as follows:

Estimated Number of Class Members: 230 Proposed Class Payment: $621.78 Estimated Number of Aggrieved 230 Employees: Proposed Average Allocation of PAGA $34.24 Penalty Paid to Each Aggrieved Employee:

6. Appointments. The Court appoints plaintiff Jeffrey Lindquist as the class representative, plaintiff's counsel Eric B. Kingsley, Kelsey Szamet, and Jessi Bulaon of Kingsley Szamet Employment Lawyers as class counsel, and Apex Class Action Administration as the Class Administrator.

7. Notice to Class. The Court is satisfied that the proposed class notice will adequately inform the class about the claims and satisfies the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.766(d). [i.e., the terms of settlement; release of claims; anticipated distribution; amount of fees and costs requested by counsel, class representatives, and the claims administrator; does not include commentary concerning the merits of the settlement; and explains the time limits for class members to object, opt out, and redeem payments.]

2024CUOE029752: JEFFREY LINDQUIST vs TUMI STORES INC

8. Attorney Fee Award. With respect to the request for attorneys fees, the Court has independently scrutinized Plaintiff’s request for a percentage fee to be paid from the common fund in the amount of 1/3 of the gross settlement amount. At this juncture, and reserving the Court’s discretion to select the method of fee recovery that best serves the facts at final approval, the Court approves a percentage fee recovery up to 1/3 of the common fund. This approval, however, is subject to a 25 percent benchmark utilized by the Court. (Lafitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 495.) Counsel must justify the fees sought in connection with the final approval motion.

9. Incentive Award. Plaintiff in this case seeks an incentive award of $7,000. Here, the Court finds, based on the information submitted and within its discretion that an award of up to $4,000 reflects the class representative’s actual effort, risk, and contributions to the litigation, and is not disproportionate to plaintiff’s expended effort. (Cellphone Termination Fee Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1393–1395.)

10. Attorney Costs. Costs are requested in an amount not to exceed $20,000. Plaintiff submits Exhibits C and D to the Supplemental Declaration of Ms. Szamet, which is an itemized list of the costs, to include costs from Berger Consulting in the amount of $12,500, among other expenses, as well as the invoices. The Court will approve costs up to $20,000, and requests that Plaintiff provides the calculation of the total of the costs sought in connection with the final approval motion.

11. Claims Administration Costs. Costs are requested in an amount not to exceed $7,490. Subject to Plaintiff’s substantiating such costs at final approval, the Court will approve costs up to the requested amount.

12. Cy Pres. The parties have selected Bet Tzedek Legal Services and provided a declaration in conformity with Code of Civil Procedure section 384.

Subject to any modifications above, the Court GRANTS the motion and will sign the proposed order to be modified in accordance with this order. The Court hereby sets the hearing for final approval on Wednesday, March 24, 2027, at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiffs counsel shall give notice.

4