LETICIA BONNET vs VITAL PLUS HOME HEALTH CARE

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)].) The Court notes that Plaintiff’s papers were compliant with these requirements, which the Court very much appreciates.

4. Fairness of Settlement. The GSA in this case is $186,000. In November 2025, Defendant paid a “Cure Payment” to 52 class members in the amount of $86,953.45, which will be used as a credit to the gross settlement amount of $186,000. Thus, Defendant will fund an additional $99,046.55 to fully fund the gross settlement amount. The settlement contains an escalator clause that will be triggered if the class pay periods exceed the amount specified in the Settlement Agreement. The settlement is non-reversionary.

The release does not include a Civil Code section 1542 waiver as to absent class members. 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 arm’s-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 has reviewed the terms of the PAGA settlement, and finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and 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).) The notice in this case was submitted on July 3, 2025.

2025CUOE046790: LETICIA BONNET vs VITAL PLUS HOME HEALTH CARE

adequate in view of PAGA’s purposes. (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal. App.5th 56, 77 disapproved on other grounds in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664.) In addition, the Court finds that the allocation between class claims and PAGA claims is fair. (Id.) Further, the Court finds that the scope of the release contained in the settlement agreement is 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 is defined as: “all current and former non-exempt employees of Vital Plus Home Health Care in the state of California who have worked in whole or in part in the field and/or have been paid in whole or in part a piece-rate at any time during the Class Period of July 3, 2021 until May 15, 2026.” Aggrieved Employees under PAGA are defined as: “All current and former non-exempt employees of Vital Plus Home Health Care in the state of California who have worked in whole or in part in the field and/or have been paid in whole or in part a piece-rate at any time during the PAGA Period.” The PAGA Period is from July 3, 2024 until May 15, 2026.” Plaintiff(s) have analyzed the range of liability, 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: 134

Estimated Class Payment: $699

Estimated Number of Aggrieved Not provided Employees:

Estimated Average Allocation of PAGA Not Provided Penalty to Aggrieved Employees:

6. Appointments. The Court appoints plaintiff Leticia Bonnet as the class representative, plaintiff's counsel Diane E. Richard of Richard Law, P.C. as class counsel, and ILYM Group, Inc. as the Settlement 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 Settlement 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.

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

2025CUOE046790: LETICIA BONNET vs VITAL PLUS HOME HEALTH CARE

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 as reasonable. (Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503.) The Court will exercise its discretion to determine the reasonableness of the fee using a 25 percent benchmark. Counsel must justify fees that exceed the Court’s benchmark in connection with the final approval motion.

9. Incentive Award. Plaintiffs in this case seek an incentive award of $7,500. Here, the Court finds within its discretion that an award of up to $7,500 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 $12,500. Subject to Plaintiff’s substantiating such costs at final approval, the Court will approve costs up to the requested amount.

11. Claims Administration Costs. Costs are requested in an amount not to exceed $4,270 expended to date. 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 Court Appointed Special Advocates (“CASA”) of Ventura County as the cy pres designee pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 384.

13. Implementation Schedule and Proposed Order. Plaintiffs are to include a detailed implementation schedule to accord with the timeline provided in the Amended Settlement Agreement in the revised proposed order. The proposed order must be a complete document and may not incorporate by reference any document not attached to it. The proposed order must have as an attachment the class notice. Subject to any modifications above, the Court GRANTS the motion and will sign the proposed order to be modified in accordance with this order / submitted in connection with the Motion. The Court hereby sets the hearing for final approval on Wednesday, January 20, 207 at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff's counsel shall give notice.

4