Abarca Carranza, Leticia vs. Vertical Foods, LLC.

Case No.: VCU313255 Date: July 23, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Motion for Final Approval Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion; to set the Final Compliance Hearing for February 25, 2027; 8:30 am; D1.

Facts and Analysis Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action and PAGA settlement, attorneys' fees, costs, enhancement award, LWDA payment and class certification for settlement purposes came on for hearing on July 23, 2026. The Court finds and rules as follows:

On June 26, 2026, the settlement administrator Phoenix Settlement Administrators, through its Case Manager, filed a declaration detailing the following events.

On January 13, 2026, the administrator received a data file regarding 215 potential class members from Defendant's counsel with names, contact information, social security numbers and relevant employment information.

On February 9, 2026, after the administrator processed the names through the National Change of Address Database and updated the list with any updated addresses located, the administrator sent class notice by mail to 215 members, with seventeen (17) notices returned as undeliverable. Updated addresses for seven (7) members were obtained and notices were remailed. Therefore, ten (10) notices have been deemed undeliverable.

Class members had sixty (60) days, until April 10, 2026 to submit objections, disputes and/or requests for exclusions. Zero (0) requests for exclusion and zero (0) valid objections have been received from class members. Therefore, all 215 Class Members or 100% of the Class will participate in the settlement.

The court presumes the settlement is fair and reasonable given (a) that it was reached through arms-length bargaining at mediation, (b) that there was sufficient time for investigation and discovery since commencement of litigation (c) class counsel have particularized experience with the claims at issue in the case, and (d) there appear to be no disputes or objections. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4 th 1794, 1802.)

A net settlement amount of $170,199.82 is available to pay to the class members in accordance with the terms of settlement. The highest class portion to be paid is approximately $5,454.60, the lowest portion to be paid is approximately $4.65 and the average payment is $842.09.

The Court believes basic information about the nature and magnitude of the claims in question and the basis for concluding that the consideration being paid for the release of those claims represents a reasonable compromise under the circumstances, in accordance with Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4 th 116, 133.

This case involved extensive informal discovery and investigation of disputed claims, including review and analysis by counsel and experts. The settlement avoids significant risks and delay that would result from further litigation of the case, which would include, amongst other matters, certification proceedings, trial, and the possibility of further delay and cost resulting from appeals.

Class counsel has provided an updated declaration in support of the requests for attorney fees representing 35% of the gross settlement fund of $333,639.53 or $116,773.84. The Court notes the escalator clause in the settlement agreement was triggered which increased the gross settlement fund after preliminary approval.

Counsel indicates that the firm has spent 209 total hours at rates ranging from $1,109 (182 hours), $625 (12 hours) and $508 (15 hours). (Declaration of Brown P.22.) The Court notes it preliminary approved Counsel Brown's rate at $839 and therefore will utilize this rate. As such, the Court calculates an adjusted lodestar of $167,818, resulting in a negative multiplier of.7.

Counsel has additionally provided sufficient cost information indicating actual costs incurred in the amount of $20,665.88. (Declaration of Brown P.24.) The Court believes the requested attorney fees and costs appear reasonable under the circumstances. Additionally, counsel has provided a sufficient declaration to demonstrate adequate previous experience with class actions to further support the reasonableness of the award.

The settlement administrator has provided, in the declaration describing the work it has performed on the case, a value of services totaling $8,000. (Declaration of Islas P.17.) The Court believes the amount requested as compensation for the administrator appears reasonable.

The settlement agreement designates distribution of unclaimed settlement proceeds to California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 384.

The Court previously approved a representative payment of $5,000 and finds that the requested enhancement payment is appropriate under the circumstances.

Finally, the Court confirms its conditional certification of the settlement class. The Court finds no significant events have occurred that would cause it to change its prior determination that the settlement class met all requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 for certification for settlement purposes at the time it granted Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval.

On review of the declarations and pleadings submitted, the Court finds, given the established presumption that the settlement is fair and reasonable under the circumstances of this case, and, particularly, given the absence of any objection or opposition following the class notice, that the settlement is fair and reasonable and that the motion for final approval should be, and is hereby, granted.

Therefore, the following deductions from the gross settlement of $333,639.53 are approved as follows: Approved Court Approved Attorney Fees (35%): | $116,773.84 | Approved Attorney Costs (actually incurred): | $20,665.88 |

Approved Enhancement Payment to Plaintiff: | $5,000.00 | Approved Settlement Administrator Costs | $8,000.00 | Approved Total PAGA Penalties | $20,000.00 | Approved Net Settlement Amount | $163,199.81 |

The Court shall enter its order of final approval and judgment in this case on the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff on June 26, 2026. Final Compliance Hearing is set for February 25, 2027; 8:30 am; D1.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings. Re: Synchrony Bank vs. Sharp, Savanna M