Anthony Bizzle v. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC, et al.

Plaintiff Bizzle filed the Bizzle 2 action, a separate representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) based on the underlying Labor Code violations described in the Bizzle 1 action. (Id., ¶ 8.) Then on November 22, 2021, Plaintiff Bizzle filed the Bizzle 3 action, which was based on the same underlying violations alleged in Bizzle 1, but against different Defendants. (Id., ¶ 9.) On July 19, 2021 and subsequently on September 17, 2021, Plaintiff Bizzle provided separate notices to the LWDA and Defendants. (St. John Decl., ¶ 9; St. John Supp. Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.)

Separately, on October 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a putative class and representative complaint against Defendants. (Matern Decl., ¶ 11.) The complaint alleged claims for: (1) failure to provide required meal periods; (2) failure to provide required rest periods; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay minimum wages due upon separation; (6) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses; (8) unfair and unlawful business practices; and (9) penalties under the PAGA. (Ibid.) Plaintiff submitted/sent a notice to the LWDA and Defendants in compliance with PAGA on June 25, 2021. (Id., ¶ 10; Matern Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)

On April 12, 2023, the Parties filed a First Amended Complaint in the Bizzle 1 action, which combined all parties and claims from the four underlying actions into a single pleading. (Matern Decl., ¶ 17.) The Parties expressly agreed that Plaintiff will retain the right to continue to pursue her claims in the Loera Action against Defendants C.O.N.R., Inc., S.L.H.C.C., Inc. and S.H.C.C., Inc., who are not parties to the proposed Settlement. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff now moves for preliminary approval of her Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release (“Settlement Agreement” or “Agreement”) with Defendants. (Matern Decl., ¶ 20, Exh. A (“SA”).) Plaintiff provided a copy of the Agreement to the LWDA. (Id., ¶ 60, Exh. B.) On March 8, 2024, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing on this matter and asked Plaintiff to address several issues.

Plaintiff Bizzle is not a party to the settlement. Counsel attests that they have “experienced difficulty in obtaining the signature of Plaintiff Bizzle to the [Agreement]. After numerous repeated attempts [to] conduct and to obtain the signature of Plaintiff Bizzle, including repeated calls and delivery attempts, Plaintiff Bizzle’s Counsel has been unable to obtain the signature of Plaintiff Bizzle.” (St. John Supp. Decl., ¶ 3.) Counsel further attests that they intend to file a motion to withdraw and/or be relieved as Plaintiff Bizzle’s attorney of record, but have agreed to jointly serve as class counsel with Plaintiff serving as the sole class representative. (Ibid.; Matern Supp. Decl., ¶ 4.)

Legal Standard

The law favors the settlement of lawsuits, particularly in class actions and other complex cases where substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, expense, and rigors of formal

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 05/03/2024 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

litigation. (See Neary v. Regents of Univ. of Cal (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273, 277-281; Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 19, 52.) However, a class action may not be dismissed, compromised, or settled without approval of the court, and the decision to approve or reject a proposed settlement is committed to the court’s sound discretion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769; Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234-35 (Wershba).)

In determining whether to approve a class settlement, the court’s responsibility is to “prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class” through settlement because the rights of the class members, including the named plaintiffs, “may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties.” (Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Kintetsu Enters. of Am. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 46, 60.) The court must independently determine “whether the settlement is in the best interests of those whose claims will be extinguished” and “make an independent assessment of the reasonableness of the terms to which the parties have agreed.” (Kullar v.

Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 130, 133.) The burden of establishing the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement is on the proponent. (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 245; see also 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135 1165-66.)

The Court does not rubber stamp these motions, but rather serves as a guardian of absent class members’ rights to ensure the settlement is fair. (Luckey v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 81, 95.) “Ultimately, the [trial] court’s determination is nothing more than ‘an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough justice.” (7-Eleven, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 1145.) “A settlement need not obtain 100 percent of the damages sought in order to be fair and reasonable. Compromise is inherent and necessary in the settlement process.

Thus, even if 'the relief afforded by the proposed settlement is substantially narrower than it would be if the suits were to be successfully litigated,' this is no bar to a class settlement because 'the public interest may indeed be served by a voluntary settlement in which each side gives ground in the interest of avoiding litigation.'” (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 250, citations omitted.) The court’s primary objective for preliminary approval is to establish whether to direct notice of the proposed settlement to the class, invite the class’s reaction, and schedule a final fairness hearing. (Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions (6th ed. 2023) § 13:10.)

Provisional Class Certification

If the class has not yet been certified, part of the motion for preliminary approval will include a request for provisional certification for purposes of settlement only. (See Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 3.769.) Although the provisional process is less demanding than a traditional motion for class certification, a trial court reviewing an application for preliminary approval of a settlement must still find that the normal class prerequisites have been met. (See Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625-627 (1997); in accord, Carter v. City of Los Angeles (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 808, 826.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 05/03/2024 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Here, Plaintiff seeks provisional certification of the following class: “all persons who worked for Defendants in the State of California as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees at any time during the period from April 1, 2019 through December 27, 2022.” (SA, § 1.1.)

Plaintiff argues that provisional class certification is appropriate because (1) the proposed class of approximately 2,500 individuals is sufficiently numerous and ascertainable from Defendants’ personnel records; (2) common questions of law and fact regarding Defendants’ policies and practices predominate over individual issues; (3) Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class’s claims because they are based on the same legal theories and arise out of the same allegedly unlawful policies and practices; (4) Plaintiff has no conflicts and has retained qualified and experienced Counsel, therefore the adequacy requirement is satisfied; and (5) a class action proceeding is superior to individual actions. (Mot., pp. 24:24-28:2.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments persuasive and provisionally certifies the Class for settlement purposes for the reasons specified in Plaintiff’s moving papers.

Class Representative and Class Counsel

Plaintiff Loera is preliminarily appointed as Class Representative. (SA, p. 3:2-3; §§ 1.11, 2.4(a).) Matern Law Group, PC, including Matthew J. Matern, Julia Z. Wells, And Sean P. Hardy, and Lawyers for Justice, PC, including Edwin Aiwazian, Arby Aiwazian, Joanna Ghosh, and Brian J. St. John are preliminarily appointed as Class Counsel (“Counsel”). (Id., § 1.2.)

Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable Settlement

Before approving a class action settlement, the Court must find that the settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) The Court considers such factors as “the strength of plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense, 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 stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement.” (Id.) “[A] presumption of fairness exists where: (1) the settlement is reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small.” (Id. at p. 1802.)

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agree to pay a non-reversionary Maximum Settlement Amount (“MSA”) of $2,540,000. (SA, § 1.9.) Defendants will separately pay any applicable employer-side payroll taxes. (Id., § 1.7.) Due to financial difficulties, the MSA will be paid in three installments. (SA, § 2.1; Matern Decl., ¶ 25.) The sum of one-third of the MSA ($846,666.67) will be deposited with the Settlement Administrator no later than 30 days, no later than 212 days, and no later than 395 days after the Court enters an order granting

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 05/03/2024 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

final approval of the Settlement. (SA, § 2.1.)

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA: 1. A Class Counsel Fees Payment in the amount of one-third of the MSA (or $846,666.67); 2. Reimbursement of Class Counsel’s litigation expenses of up to $30,000; 3. A Class Representative Service Payment in the amount of $10,000 to Plaintiff Loera; 4. Settlement administration costs not to exceed $30,000; 5. PAGA penalties in the amount of $150,000, which will be allocated 75% ($112,500) to the LWDA and 25% ($37,500) to the PAGA Employees.

(SA, §§ 1.23, 2.4(a)-(c).) The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) – is approximately $1,473,333.33. (Id., § 1.18.)

Individual Class Settlement Awards will be calculated by dividing the Participating Class Member’s Individual Class Workweeks by the total number of Class Member Workweeks, and multiplying the resulting number by the NSA. (SA, § 2.6(b).) Similarly, Individual PAGA Settlement Payments will be calculated by dividing each PAGA Employee’s Individual PAGA Workweeks by the total number of PAGA Workweeks for all PAGA employees, and then multiplying the result by $37,500, or the PAGA Employees’ portion of the PAGA Penalties. (Id., § 2.6(a).)

To the extent that any Individual PAGA Settlement Payment and/or Individual Class Settlement Payment Award remains uncashed after 180 days from the date of issuance, any such undeliverable or uncashed checks will become null and void and the funds associated with any such uncashed checks will be distributed to the Controller of the State of California to be held pursuant to the Unclaimed Property Law for the benefit of those Class Members who did not cash their checks. (Id., § 2.8.)

Within 20 calendar days following preliminary approval, Defendants will provide the Settlement Administrator with the Class List. (SA, § 3.2.2.) No later than 30 calendar days after preliminary approval, the Settlement Administrator will mail the Class Notice to all Class Members. (Id., § 3.2.1.) For any Class Notices returned to the Settlement Administrator on or before the Response Deadline without a forwarding address, the Settlement Administrator will attempt to locate a correct address by the use of skip-tracing or another type of automated search, and if an Updated Address is ascertained, will re-mail the Class Notice to the Class Member’s Updated Address within 3 business days.

In the event that any Class Notices are returned with a forwarding address, the Settlement Administrator will re-mail the Class Notice to the forwarding address provided within 3 business days. Class Members who are sent a re-mailed Class Notice shall have their Response Deadline extended by 10 calendar days from the date of the initial Response Deadline. (Id., § 3.2.5.) Otherwise, Class Members will have 60 days from the date of mailing to dispute the number of workweeks credited to them, submit written objections to the settlement, or opt-out of the settlement of the class claims. (Id., §§ 1.34, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, and 3.3.4.)

Each of the Individual Class Settlement Amount payments to Participating Class Members will

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 05/03/2024 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

be allocated as follows: 20% to satisfaction of claims for unpaid wages; 80% to the satisfaction of claims for interest and penalties. All settlement payments for wages shall be subject to required withholdings and deductions as W-2 wage payments. The Individual PAGA Settlement Payments to PAGA Employees are allocated as 100% penalties and shall also be issued through a 1099 form and not subject to withholdings or deductions. (SA, § 2.5.)

Upon the later of the Effective Date or the date upon which Defendants have completed funding the MSA, each Participating Class Member will be deemed to have released the “Released Class Claims.” (SA, § 3.5.1.) The “Released Class Claims” means “all claims, demands, rights, liabilities and causes of action of every nature and description whatsoever against the Released Parties, and any of them, that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, based on the facts during the Class Period stated in the operative complaints in Bizzle Matter 1, which arose at any time during the Class Period, including but not limited to, claims for failure to pay for all hours worked (including minimum wages and overtime), failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain accurate payroll records, failure to reimburse business expenses, and all damages, interest, penalties, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other associated penalties.

The release does not extend to any claims not alleged in the operative Complaint in Bizzle Matter 1, and specifically excludes claims for workers’ compensation, personal injuries, unemployment insurance, state disability compensation, claims under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, previously vested benefits under any employer sponsored benefits plan, wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation, and harassment including but not limited to those arising under the Age Discrimination In Employment Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, and/or Federal Civil Rights Act of 1991, or any similar state or federal laws, the California Family Rights Act, the Federal Family Medical Leave Act, the California Pregnancy Leave Law, or similar state or federal laws, the Federal Equal Pay Act of 1963, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or violations of any other state or federal law, rule or regulation concerning discrimination, retaliation and/or harassment.” (Id., § 1.31.)

Similarly, upon the later of the Effective Date or the date upon which Defendants have completed funding the MSA, the PAGA Employees will be deemed to release the “Released PAGA Claims.” (SA, § 3.5.2.) The “Released PAGA Claims” means “all claims for civil penalties under the PAGA alleged against the Released Parties in the operative complaints in the Litigation, along with all claims that could have been alleged based on the facts alleged in the operative complaints in the Litigation and the Plaintiffs’ PAGA notices to the LWDA, which arose at any time during the PAGA Period, including claims for failure to properly pay wages for all hours worked (including minimum and overtime wages), failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, failure to keep accurate payroll records, failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements.” (Id., §

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 05/03/2024 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

1.32.) Only Plaintiff Loera, as the Class Representative, is subject to a general release. (Id., § 3.5.3.)

Prior to the mediation, Defendants produced Plaintiff’s personnel, payroll and time records in response to her Labor Code section 226 request. Defendants also informally produced Defendants’ relevant policies, practices and procedures, a sampling of Class Member time and payroll records from July 2019 to July 1, 2022 and exemplars of arbitration agreements, releases, and meal break waivers. (Matern Decl., ¶ 18; see also St. John Decl., ¶¶ 11-12.) Counsel retained an expert data analyst to analyze the time and payroll data sample which was instrumental in preparing a damages analysis for Plaintiff’s mediation brief. (Matern Decl., ¶ 18.)

On September 27, 2022, the Parties participated in a full-day mediation with experienced class action mediator Jeffrey Krivis. At the end of the day, Mr. Krivis issued a mediator’s proposal, which the Parties accepted, resulting in a global settlement (excluding her individual claims). (Matern Decl., ¶ 19; St. John Decl., ¶ 13.)

Plaintiff estimates that Defendants’ maximum potential damages and penalties are approximately $109,149,644, representing a “best possible case scenario” and provides a breakdown of her Counsel’s valuation. (Marten Decl., ¶ 22; Matern Supp. Decl., ¶ 5.) Specifically, Plaintiff estimates the total unpaid rest period premiums to be $14,169,973.40 (based on a violation rate of 1, 5 shifts per week, 127,028 workweeks in the class period, and an average rate of pay of $22.31). (Id., ¶ 22(A).) She estimates the total unpaid meal break premiums to be $4,180,142.15 (based on a violation rate of 0.30, 5 shifts per week, 127,028 workweeks in the class period, and an average rate of pay of $22.31). (Id., ¶ 22(B).)

She estimates the total unpaid regular rate claims to be to be $379,667 (consisting of $139,830 in sick pay wages based on approximately 7,000 sick pay hours, $212,550 in overtime wages based on approximately 2,300 pay periods with overtime, and $27,287 in meal premiums based on approximately 3,000 paid meal break premiums). (Id., ¶ 22(C); Matern Supp. Decl., ¶ 5(C).) She estimates the total waiting time penalties to be $8,593,812 (based on 1,605 former employees, an average hourly rate of $22.31, 8 hours per day, and the statutory period of 30 days); the total records penalties to be $1,250,000 (based on 2,500 employees and a $500 penalty); and the total wage statement penalties to be $10,000,000 (based on 2,500 employees and a $4,000 penalty). (Matern Decl., ¶ 22(D); Matern Supp.

Decl., ¶ 5(D).) Finally, Plaintiff estimated a total PAGA exposure of $70,576,050, including $3,643,950 for overtime compensation penalties, $9,066,150 for regular compensation penalties, $36,002,250 for wage statement penalties, $7,287,900 for meal period penalties, $7,287,900 for rest break penalties, and $7,287,900 for business expense reimbursement penalties. (Matern Decl., ¶ 22(E).) Here, the MSA represents only 2.49% of Defendants’ maximum total exposure. The PAGA allocation represents only 0.21% of Defendants’ maximum PAGA exposure.

Counsel estimated a 50% likelihood of obtaining and maintaining certification of Plaintiff’s class claims, which reduced the value of the class claims from $38,573,594.55 to $19,286,797.28. (Matern Supp. Decl., ¶ 6.) Counsel estimated that there was a 30% chance the Court would strike

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 05/03/2024 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

the PAGA claims on manageability grounds, since this settlement was negotiated prior to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2024) 15 Cal. 5th 582, which reduced the value of the PAGA claims from approximately $70,576,050 to $49,403,235. (Ibid.) Counsel further estimated that there was a 50% chance that Plaintiff will prevail at trial, further reducing the value of the class claims to approximately $9,643,398.50 and the PAGA claims to approximately $24,701,617.50. (Ibid.)

Furthermore, Defendants contend that at least 786 employees signed arbitration agreements that contained a class and representative action waiver representing approximately 55% of the total workweeks in Plaintiff’s analysis above. (Ibid.) These arbitration agreements would further reduce the value of the class claims to approximately $4,339,529.32 and the PAGA claims to approximately $11,115,727.90. (Ibid.)

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (St. John Decl., ¶¶ 2-7; Matern Decl., ¶¶ 28-35.) Counsel attests to their belief that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (St. John Decl., ¶ 14; Matern Decl., ¶ 25.) Based on the foregoing, the Court preliminarily finds, subject to the final fairness hearing, that the Settlement is within the ballpark of reasonableness and is entitled to a presumption of fairness and that all relevant factors support preliminary approval.

PAGA Payment

The Agreement provides for the payment of PAGA penalties in the amount of $150,000, which will be allocated 75% ($112,500) to the LWDA and 25% ($37,500) to the PAGA Employees. (SA, § 1.23.) The PAGA Employees are “all Class Members who worked for Defendants at any time during the period from July 19, 2020 to December 27, 2022.” (Id., § 1.22.) As discussed above, the PAGA Employees’ share will be distributed on a pro-rata basis and the PAGA Employees are subject to a separate release. (Id., §§ 1.32, 2.6(a), 3.5.2.) The Agreement makes clear that PAGA Employees cannot opt-out of the PAGA portion of the settlement. (Id., § 3.3.4.)

As discussed above, Counsel calculated the reasonable value of the PAGA claims to be $11,115,727.90. (Matern Supp. Decl., ¶ 6.)Plaintiff also recognized that the Court has discretion to substantially reduce any PAGA penalty award. (Ibid.) The Court finds the PAGA allocation reasonable under the circumstances and it is preliminarily approved.

Proposed Class Notice

The notice to Class Members must fairly apprise the prospective members of the terms of the settlement without expressing an opinion on the merits of the settlement. (7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1164; see also Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 3.769.) “Whether a claimant would want to accept or reject the proposed settlement is a decision to be made by him independently and without influence or pressure from those competing parties who either favor or oppose the settlement.” (Phila. Hous. Auth. v. Am.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 05/03/2024 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Radiator & Std. Sanitary Corp. (E.D. Pa. 1970) 323 F.Supp. 364, 378.)

Plaintiff’s proposed Notice to the Class fairly apprises the Class Members of the terms of the proposed settlement and their rights as prospective class members. (SA, Exh. A (“Notice”).) The Parties revised the Class Notice to address the Court’s concerns. (Matern Supp. Decl., ¶ 7, Exhs. B and C.) The Notice now provides that “According to Defendants’ records, you are a member of the Settlement Class (a ‘Class Member’) and.or ‘PAGA Member’ as described above[.]” (Ibid., p. 2 “Who is affected by this proposed Settlement?”.) The Parties should correct the “and.or” typographical error and ensure that the sentence has ending punctuation. However, the Court need not review another revised Notice. With those corrections, the Notice is approved.

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

The Agreement provides for a Class Counsel Fees Payment in the amount of one-third of the MSA (or $846,666.67). (SA, § 2.4(b).) Counsel attests that Matern Law Group, PC and Lawyers for Justice, PC agreed to jointly serve as class counsel in this matter, with Plaintiff Loera serving as the sole class representative. Counsel memorialized this agreement in a written fee agreement that will divide the requested fee award equally (50% to Matern Law Group and 50% to Lawyers for Justice). (Matern Supp. Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff Loera was provided with the written fee agreement, and she provided written approval of said fee agreement. (Ibid.) Counsel for Plaintiff Bizzle attests that they have been unable to communicate with their client and intend to withdraw. (St. John Supp. Decl., ¶ 3.)

The requested award is preliminarily approved. In moving for final approval, the Court expects Counsel to support their arguments with respect to this amount, including by providing information necessary to perform a lodestar analysis. (See In re Activision Sec. Litigation (N.D. Cal. 1989) 723 F.Supp. 1373, 1379; Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 557- 58 & fn. 13.; Martin v. Ameripride Servs. (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2011), 2011 WL 2313604 at *22 (collecting cases); Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc. (E.D. Cal 2010) 266 F.R.D. 482, 491 (same); see also Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 66 & n.11.)

The Agreement also provides for the reimbursement of Counsel’s litigation expenses of up to $30,000. (SA, § 2.4(b).) The Court also preliminarily approves the Agreement’s allocation with the expectation that Counsel will provide a declaration, in moving for final approval, that shows actual costs.

Settlement Administrator

The Agreement designates Simpluris as Settlement Administrator and provides for settlement administration costs not to exceed $30,000. (SA, §§ 1.36, 2.4(c).) Simpluris is appointed as Settlement Administrator and the allocation is reasonable and preliminarily approved.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 05/03/2024 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Class Representative Service Payment

The Agreement provides for a Class Representative Service Payment in the amount of $10,000 to Plaintiff. (SA, § 2.4(a).) Plaintiff describes her efforts and estimates that she spent approximately 30 hours prosecuting this action. (Loera Decl., ¶ 7.) This service payment is preliminarily approved.

Final Approval Hearing

The Court will again review and consider the terms of this settlement at the time of the final approval hearing. The Court sets a Final Approval Hearing for October 11, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. If either party is unavailable on that date, the parties shall meet and confer to identify three other Fridays at 9:00 a.m. that work for the parties to schedule the hearing. They shall then submit those dates to the Court via email at Dept22@saccourt.ca.gov, and the Court will reschedule the hearing accordingly.

The briefing shall be filed in conformity with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

At final approval, Plaintiff is expected to explicitly confirm whether Plaintiff Bizzle is a Participating Class Member. If Plaintiff Bizzle requests exclusion, Plaintiff Bizzle’s individual claims would remain active in the action and require adjudication, thereby making it difficult to enter judgment as to the entire case.

Order

The Court will sign the Proposed Order submitted with Plaintiff’s initial moving papers, indicating that the approved Notice is attached to Mr. Matern’s supplemental declaration in paragraph 8 and adding the final approval hearing dates in paragraph 14.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 22 at (916) 874-5762 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.)

Parties requesting services of a court reporter may arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. The list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore is available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 05/03/2024 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf.

If you are not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, a Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge. The signed form must be filed with the clerk prior to the hearing.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211). The form must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the hearing is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

If oral argument is requested, the Parties are encouraged to appear via Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept22 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16184738886

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

Please note that the Complex Civil Case Department now provides information to assist you in managing your complex case on the Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/civil/complex-civil-cases.aspx. The Court strongly encourages parties to review this website regularly to stay abreast of the most recent complex civil case procedures. Please refer to the website before directly contacting the Court Clerk for information.