Gordon vs. Summit Medical Staffing LLC

1. Attorney’s fees in the amount of $215,000. The Court finds this amount to be a reasonable result in light of the quality of the result obtained, the work performed by class counsel, a review of the billing records provided, and the claimed lodestar. Because counsel seek recovery on a lodestar basis rather than a common fund basis, the Court finds their claimed rates ($700 for Yashdeep Singh and $850 for Gerald Ohn) to be reasonable for attorneys of similar skill and tenure in the market.

2. Litigation costs in the amount of $16,003. From review of the cost records provided, it appears both Mr. Singh and Mr. Ohn claimed $1,492.52 in initial filing fees. As far as the Court is aware, there is only one case, so counsel will be permitted to recover only one initial filing fee. All other costs are approved.

3. Administration costs in the amount of $7,500, per the administrator’s declaration.

4. An enhancement of $5,000 to Plaintiff. In making this award, the Court has considered only the factors set forth 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.

Pursuant to section 384(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff shall submit to the Court a final report on or before January 30, 2027 setting forth the actual amounts paid to class members and other amounts disbursed pursuant to the settlement. Upon receiving the report, the Court will determine whether further reports and/or a hearing will be necessary.

Please submit a revised proposed order for the Court’s signature that conforms to the foregoing. 5 Gordon vs. Summit Medical Staffing LLC 2025-01468470

Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval Plaintiff’s motion for final approval of the parties’ class action settlement will be GRANTED subject to the parties explaining (1) why the workweeks tally at final approval (4,314) varied so much from the estimated number of workweeks at the preliminary approval stage (6,486); and (2) Plaintiff’s individual share of the settlement. Assuming those issues are addressed, then the Court intends to approve the following distributions:

1. Attorney’s fees in the amount of $97,500, or 30% of the GSA. The Court finds this amount to be a reasonable result in light of the quality of the result obtained, the work performed by class counsel, a review of the billing records provided, and the estimated lodestar. In approving this amount and examining the billing records provided, the Court is not approving any particular hourly billing rates proposed by class counsel.

2. Litigation costs in the amount of $24,798, the full amount claimed in the costs ledger.

3. Administration costs in the amount of $6,750, per the administrator’s declaration.

4. An enhancement of $5,000 to Plaintiff. In making this award, the Court has considered only the factors set forth 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.

5. Payment to the LWDA of $7,500, per the parties’ PAGA allocation.

Pursuant to section 384(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff shall submit to the Court a final report on or before February 28, 2027 setting forth the actual amounts paid to class members and other amounts disbursed pursuant to the settlement. Upon receiving the report, the Court will determine whether further reports and/or a hearing will be necessary.

Please submit a revised proposed order for the Court’s signature that conforms to the foregoing.

6 Her vs. Avon Protection Systems, Inc.

2024-01392475

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing filed in response to the previous minute order. The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. The motion for final approval shall be heard on December 18, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX101. Moving papers are due 16 court days before the hearing. Please submit a revised proposed order that conforms to the foregoing, includes the date of the final approval hearing, and updates all dates that are calculated in reference to the date preliminary approval is granted. 7 Gallegos vs. MAPS SERVICES INC., a California corporation;

2021-01216978

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Approving Paga Settlement CONTINUED TO 8/14/2026 8 Fitwi vs. MK Phoenix Airport LLC

2025-01504819

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories Plaintiff Ahmed Fitwi’s unopposed motion to compel responses to his first set of special interrogatories issued to Defendant MK Phoenix Airport LLC is GRANTED as set forth below.

I. Compelling Responses

On February 10, 2026, Plaintiff served a single special interrogatory on Defendant, seeking the identity and contact information of the putative class members. (ROA 48, Ex. A.) As of the date this motion was filed, no response had been provided. (ROA 48, ¶ 6.) As a result, any potential objections are waived by operation of law, and Defendant is ordered to provide a response.

However, the information at issue implicates the privacy interests of