DREHER, et al. vs CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al.

23CV007758: DREHER, et al. vs CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Teddy Lawrence Dreher, Cutrenia M. Saxon, Curtisha Holden, and Luke Perry’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion for preliminary approval of the Parties’ class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) settlement is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED, subject to the Parties’ clarification regarding the Class and PAGA releases and the information requested below. Accordingly, the Parties’ APPEARANCE IS REQUIRED.

Moving counsel’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise them of Local Rule 1.06, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing.

Status Conference (Compliance Hearing) is scheduled for 07/31/2026 at 10:30 AM in Department 8B at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.

Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement is scheduled for 01/08/2027 at 9:00 AM in Department 8B at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.

The Court has provided specific direction on the information and argument the Court requires to grant approval of a class action settlement. The Parties shall carefully review the Checklist for Approval of Class Action Settlements and fully comply with each applicable item to ensure a prompt ruling from the Court.

Background

On September 1, 2023, Plaintiff Dreher commenced this Action by filing a Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, alleging causes of action against Defendant Center for Employment Opportunities, Inc. (“Defendant”) for violation of the Labor Code and the Wage Order for (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (2) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay Hourly Wages and Overtime, (4) Failure to Pay Proper Reporting Time Wages, (5) Failure to Pay Proper Sick Pay, (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements, (7) Failure to Pay All Wages Upon Termination, (8) Failure to Indemnify; and (9) Unfair Competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et. seq. (the “Dreher Action”). (Kim Decl., ¶ 4.)

On November 1, 2023, the Dreher Action was removed to the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, and assigned Case No.: 2:23-cv- 02515-JDP. (Ibid.) On September 1, 2023, Plaintiff Dreher submitted a PAGA notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”). (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. 2.) On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff Dreher filed a First Amended Complaint the District Court, adding a cause of

23CV007758: DREHER, et al. vs CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

action against Defendant for civil penalties for violation of PAGA. (Id., ¶ 4.)

On January 23, 2024, Plaintiff Perry commenced an action against Defendant titled Luke Perry v. Center for Employment Opportunities, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, (“Perry Action”) wherein Plaintiff Perry alleged similar overlapping theories of liability as Plaintiff Dreher. (Kim Decl., ¶ 5; Haines Decl., ¶ 13.) On the same date, Plaintiff Perry also submitted a PAGA letter to the LWDA. (Kim Decl., ¶ 5; Haines Decl., ¶ 13, Exh. A.) On March 5, 2024, the Perry Action was removed to the United States District Court Eastern District of California, Case No. 24-cv-00489-KK-SP. (Kim Decl., ¶ 5; Haines Decl., ¶ 13.)

On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff Perry filed a representative action for civil penalties under PAGA in the matter entitled Luke Perry v. Center for Employment Opportunities, Inc., Riverside Superior Court Case No. CVRI2401704 (“Perry PAGA Action”). (Haines Decl., ¶ 13.)

On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff Holden submitted a notice to Defendant and the LWDA. (Matern Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. A.) On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff Holden commenced an action against Defendant titled Curtisha Holden v. Center for Employment Opportunities, in Alameda County Superior Court, wherein Plaintiff Holden alleged similar overlapping theories of liability as Plaintiff Dreher (“Holden Action”). (Kim Decl., ¶ 5; Matern Decl., ¶ 12.) On March 1, 2024, the Holden Action was removed to the United States District Court Northern District of California, Case No. 3:24-cv-01269. (Kim Decl., ¶ 5; Matern Decl., ¶ 13.)

Counsel attests that on June 28, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated Second Amended Complaint in the Dreher Action (the “Operative Complaint”), adding Plaintiffs Saxon, Holden, and Perry as named plaintiffs. (Kim Decl., ¶ 5; Matern Decl., ¶ 14.) Because this amendment occurred in the federal action, the operative pleading is not reflected in this Court’s Register of Actions. Plaintiffs are instructed to file a copy. Plaintiffs Perry and Holden subsequently dismissed both the Perry Action and the Holden Action. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs now seek preliminary approval of the Parties’ Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement and Class Notice (“Agreement”). (Kim Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. (“SA”).) Plaintiffs submitted the Agreement and their moving papers to the LWDA. (Id., ¶ 79, Exh. 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 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007758: DREHER, et al. vs CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

(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. 2025) § 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.)

Here, Plaintiffs seek provisional certification of the following class: “all persons employed by Defendant in hourly, non-exempt positions in California during the Class Period.” (SA, ¶ 1.4.) The Class Period means the period from September 16, 2021 through March 7, 2025. (Id., ¶

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007758: DREHER, et al. vs CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

1.12.)

Plaintiffs argue that provisional certification is appropriate because (1) the Class of approximately 6,728 individuals is sufficiently numerous and ascertainable from Defendant’s payroll and personnel records; (2) common issues of law and fact predominate because Plaintiff’s have alleged a single scheme based on Defendant’s wage and hour practices; (3) Plaintiffs’ claims are typical because they arose from the same factual basis and are based on the same legal theories; (4) Plaintiffs are adequate representatives because their interests are aligned with those of the Class, they have diligently represented the Class, and have retained experienced Counsel; and (5) class resolution is superior to other available methods because there is little interest or incentive for Class Members to individual control the prosecution of separate actions. (Mot., pp. 16:13-20:1.) The Court finds Plaintiffs’ arguments persuasive and provisionally certifies the Class for settlement purposes for the reasons specified in Plaintiffs’ moving papers.

Class Representative and Class Counsel

Plaintiffs are preliminarily appointed as Class Representatives. (SA, ¶ 1.13.) David Keledjian, David Arakelyan, Enoch J. Kim, and Norayr Zakaryan of D.Law, Inc.;[1] Matthew J. Matern and Deanna S. Leifer of Matern Law Group, P.C.; and Paul K. Haines, Sean M. Blakely, and Joel M. Gordon of Haines Law Group, APC are preliminarily appointed as Class Counsel. (Id., ¶ 1.6.)

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.” (Ibid.) “[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 Agreement, Defendant denies liability, but agrees to pay a Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $2,299,500 to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims. (SA, ¶¶ 1.18, 3.1, 12.2.) The GSA does not include the employer’s share of payroll taxes, which will be paid by Defendant, and separate and in addition to this amount. (Id., ¶ 1.18.) The Administrator will disburse the entire GSA without asking or requiring Participating Class Members or Aggrieved Employees to submit any claim as a condition of payment. (Id., ¶ 3.1.) None of the GSA will revert to Defendant. (Ibid.) Defendant shall fully fund the GSA and the amounts necessary to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007758: DREHER, et al. vs CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

fully pay Defendant’s share of payroll taxes by transmitting the first half of the funds due to the Administrator no later than 14 days after the Effective Date,[2] and the second half of the funds to the Administrator no later than 6 months after transmission of the first payment. (Id., ¶ 4.3.)

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA: - Class Representative Service Payments to the Class Representatives of not more than $10,000 each (totaling $40,000). (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.) - A Class Counsel Fees Payment of not more than one-third of the GSA, which is currently estimated to be $766,500, and a Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment of not more than $40,000. (Id., ¶ 3.2.2.) - An Administrator Expenses Payment not to exceed $40,000 except for a showing of good cause and as approved by the Court. (Id., ¶ 3.2.3.) - PAGA Penalties in the amount of $100,000, with 75% ($75,000) allocated to the LWDA PAGA Payment and 25% ($25,000) allocated to the Individual PAGA Payments. (Id., ¶ 3.2.5.)

The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) is approximately $1,313,000 and will be distributed to the Participating Class Members on a pro rata basis as Individual Class Payments. (SA, ¶¶ 1.23, 1.28.) An Individual Class Payment calculated by (a) dividing the NSA by the total number of Workweeks worked by all Participating Class Members during the Class Period and (b) multiplying the result by each Participating Class Member’s Workweeks. (Id., ¶ 3.2.4.) Similarly, the Individual PAGA Payments will be distributed on a pro rata basis and calculated by (a) dividing the amount of the Aggrieved Employees’ 25% share of PAGA Penalties ($25,000) by the total number of PAGA Pay Periods worked by all Aggrieved Employees during the PAGA Period and (b) multiplying the result by each Aggrieved Employee’s PAGA Pay Periods. (Id., ¶¶ 1.24, 3.2.5.1.)

Within 14 days after Defendant fully funds the GSA, the Administrator will mail checks distributing the settlement. (SA, ¶ 4.4.) The Administrator will issue checks for the Individual Class Payments and/or Individual PAGA Payments and send them to the Class Members via First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid. (Id., ¶ 4.4.1.) Before mailing any checks, the Settlement Administrator must update the recipients’ mailing addresses using the National Change of Address Database. (Ibid.) Within 7 days of receiving a check returned as undeliverable, the Administrator must re-mail checks to the USPS forwarding address provided or to an address ascertained through the Class Member Address Search. (Id., ¶ 4.4.2.)

The face of each check shall prominently state the date (not less than 180 days after the date of mailing) when the check will be voided. (Id., ¶ 4.4.1.) The Administrator will cancel all checks not cashed by the void date. (Ibid.) For any Class Member whose Individual Class Payment check or Individual PAGA Payment check is uncashed and cancelled after the void date, the Administrator shall transmit the funds represented by such checks to Legal Aid of Northern California (50%) and Legal Aid of Southern California (50%), nonprofit organizations providing legal services to the indigent. (Id.,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007758: DREHER, et al. vs CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

¶ 4.4.3.) Counsel and the Parties attest that they have no interest in the cy pres beneficiaries. (Kim Decl., ¶ 78; Haines Decl., ¶ 18; Matern Decl., ¶ 34; Siegel Decl., ¶¶ 3-4; Dreher Decl., ¶ 24; Saxon Decl., ¶ 22; Holden Decl., ¶ 13; Perry Decl., ¶ 8.) For tax purposes, 15% of each Participating Class Member’s Individual Class Payment will be allocated to the settlement of wage claims and will be reported on an IRS W-2 Form. (SA, ¶ 3.2.4.1.) The remaining 85% will be allocated to the settlement of claims for interest and penalties and will be reported on IRS 1099 Forms. (Ibid.) The Administrator will report the Individual PAGA Payments on IRS 1099 Forms. (Id., ¶ 3.2.5.2.)

Not later than 15 days after the Court grants Preliminary Approval, Defendant will deliver the Class Data to the Administrator. (SA, ¶ 4.2.) Using best efforts to perform as soon as possible, and in no event later than 14 days after receiving the Class Data, the Administrator will send to all Class Members identified in the Class Data, via first-class USPS mail and email, the Class Notice with Spanish translation. (Id., ¶ 7.4.2.) Before any mailing, the Administrator shall update Class Member addresses using the National Change of Address database. (Ibid.)

Not later than 3 business days after the Administrator’s receipt of any Class Notice returned by USPS as undeliverable, the Administrator shall re-mail the Notice using any forwarding address provided. (Id., ¶ 7.4.3.) If no forwarding address is provided, the Administrator shall conduct a Class Member Address Search and re-mail the Notice to the most current address obtained. (Ibid.) Class Members will have 60 days after the Administrator mails the Notice to submit written objections, challenges to workweeks/pay periods, or requests for exclusion. (Id., ¶¶ 1.43, 7.5.1, 7.6, 7.7.2.)

The deadlines will be extended an additional 14 days beyond the 60 days otherwise provided for all Class Members whose notice is re-mailed. (Id., ¶¶ 1.43, 7.4.4.) The Administrator will inform the Class Member of the extended deadline with the re-mailed Notice. (Id., ¶ 7.4.4.)

“Effective on the date when Defendant fully funds the entire [GSA] and funds all employer payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portion of the Individual Class Payments, Plaintiffs, Class Members, and Aggrieved Employees will release claims against the Released Parties as follows:” - Plaintiffs are subject to general releases. (SA, ¶¶ 5, 5.1.) - “All Participating Class Members[] release Released Parties from all claims that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, based on the allegations and causes of action stated in the Operative Complaint, including claims for (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, (2) Failure to Provide Rest Periods, (3) Failure to Pay Hourly Wages and Overtime, (4) Failure to Pay Proper Reporting Time Wages, (5) Failure to Pay Proper Sick Pay, (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements, (7) Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages, (8) Failure to Pay Wages Due, Negotiable and Payable in Cash on Demand, (9) Failure to Indemnify for Reasonable Business Expenses, and (10) Unfair Competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. (‘Released Class Claims’). Except as set forth in Section 5.3 of this Agreement,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007758: DREHER, et al. vs CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

Participating Class Members do not release any other claims, including claims for vested benefits, wrongful termination, violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, unemployment insurance, disability, social security, workers’ compensation, claims based on facts occurring outside the Class Period, or the Preserved Claims.” (Id., ¶¶ 5, 5.2 [emphasis added].) - “All Aggrieved Employees are deemed to release[] the Released Parties from all claims for PAGA penalties that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, based on the allegations stated in the Operative Complaint and the PAGA Notice, including claims for (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, (2) Failure to Provide Rest Periods, (3) Failure to Pay Hourly Wages and Overtime, (4) Failure to Pay Proper Reporting Time Wages, (5) Failure to Pay Proper Sick Pay, (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements, (7) Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages, (8) Failure to Pay Wages Due, Negotiable and Payable in Cash on Demand, (9) Failure to Indemnify for Reasonable Business Expenses, and (10) violation of Labor Code section 2698, et. seq. (‘Released PAGA Claims’).” (Id., ¶¶ 5, 5.3 [emphasis added].)

Generally, in cases involving both class and PAGA claims, the separate class and PAGA releases must be tailored to the claims that were alleged or reasonably could have been alleged based on the facts alleged in the complaint and/or LWDA Notice. (See Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 538-539, 541, fn. 5 [“Releases must be appropriately tethered to the complaint’s factual allegations;” “[A] court cannot release claims that are outside the scope of the allegations of the complaint.”]; Uribe v.

Crown Building Maintenance Co. (2021) 70 Cap.App.5th 986, 1005.) The Court is concerned that both releases are overbroad insofar as they each refer to “allegations,” without reference to the facts, and the class release also incorporates “claims based on the causes of action stated.” The Court believes the cleanest approach is for the emphasized language above to be replaced with the phrase “based on the factual allegations.” The Parties shall be prepared to address the Court’s concerns, including whether they are agreeable to the proposed revisions.[3]

Plaintiffs’ moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was reached after sufficient investigation and arms-length negotiations. Before filing the lawsuit, Class Counsel conducted a thorough investigation and researched the facts and circumstances underlying the pertinent issues and applicable law. (Kim Decl., ¶ 7.) After filing the lawsuit, Class Counsel conducted a thorough investigation of the facts and claims giving rise to the action, including (1) conducting formal and informal discovery and meeting and conferring with defense counsel about same; (2) reviewing and analyzing records and data, as well as employment-related policies; (3) reviewing Plaintiffs’ personnel files and other documentation; (4) interviewing Plaintiffs regarding potential Class Members; (5) researching the applicable law and potential defenses; (6) constructing damage models based on interpretations of California law and the facts and numbers provided by Defendant; and (7) reviewing information provided by Defendant in response to formal and multiple rounds of informal discovery and in advance of the mediation.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007758: DREHER, et al. vs CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

(Ibid.) On July 2, 2024, the Parties attended an all-day mediation session with Brandon McKelvey, Esq., an experienced litigator and mediator in the field of wage and hour class actions. (Id., ¶ 9.) The negotiations were adversarial and non-collusive in nature. (Id., ¶ 22.) While the Parties did not reach a resolution at mediation, they continued to engage in settlement negotiations with the assistance of the mediator. (Matern Decl., ¶ 19.) On December 18, 2024, Mr. McKelvey issued a mediator’s proposal outlining the material terms of a proposed class action settlement, which the Parties accepted. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs estimated Defendant’s exposure as follows:

Claim Maximum Exposure Discount Realistic Exposure Failure to Pay Minimum $712,364.00 80% discount $142,472.80 Wages and Overtime Wages Meal Periods $2,293,074.00 80% discount $458,614.80 Rest Breaks $1,156,261.60 80% discount $231,252.32 Reporting Time Pay $476,591.08 80% discount $95,318.21 Wage Statement Violations $12,497,750.00 95% discount $624,887.50 Sick Pay $15,039.00 80% discount $3,007.80 Waiting Time Penalties $21,387,589.00 95% discount $1,069,379.45 Failure to Reimburse for $336,400.00 80% discount $67,280.00 Necessary Business Expenditures PAGA Penalties $678,030.00 $678,030.00

Total: $39,553,098.68 $3,370,242.08

(Kim Decl., ¶¶ 42-60.) Counsel adequately describes Plaintiffs’ claims; Defendant’s defenses; the risks of continued litigation; and the exposures summarized above, including the underlying assumptions and methodologies. (Id., ¶¶ 24-60.) The GSA represents approximately 5.81% of Defendant’s maximum exposure and 68.23% of Defendant’s realistic exposure. (Id., ¶ 62.)

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 70-77; Haines Decl., ¶¶ 2-11; Matern Decl., ¶¶ 21-29.) Counsel attests to their belief that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Kim Decl., ¶ 10.) Based on the foregoing, the Court preliminarily finds, subject to the final fairness hearing, that the Settlement is within the ballpark of reasonableness and that all relevant factors support preliminary approval.

PAGA Payment

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007758: DREHER, et al. vs CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

The Agreement provides for the payment of PAGA penalties in the amount of $100,000, with 75% allocated to the LWDA and 25% allocated to the Aggrieved Employees. (SA, ¶ 3.2.5.) The Aggrieved Employees are persons employed by Defendant in California as a nonexempt, hourly employee during the PAGA Period. (Id., ¶ 1.4.) The PAGA Period means the period from September 1, 2022 through March 7, 2025. (Id., ¶ 1.31.) As discussed above, the Aggrieved Employees’ portion will be distributed on a pro rata basis as Individual PAGA Payments, and the Aggrieved Employees are subject to a separate release. (Id., ¶ 1.24, 3.2.5.1, 5.3.) The Agreement makes clear that Aggrieved Employees may not request exclusion from or object to the PAGA portion of the settlement. (Id., ¶¶ 7.5.4, 7.7.4.)

Counsel estimated Defendant’s PAGA exposure to be $678,030, based on 135,606 PAGA pay periods and $5 per pay period.[4] (Kim Decl., ¶ 59.) However, Counsel acknowledged that the PAGA penalties are derivative and the Court has discretion to reduce them. (Id., ¶¶ 57-58.) Accordingly, Counsel applied discounts and agreed to a PAGA allocation of $100,000. (Id., ¶ 59.) The PAGA allocation represents approximately 14.75% of Defendant’s exposure. The Court finds the PAGA allocation reasonable under the circumstances and is entitled to a presumption of fairness 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. Rules 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. Radiator & Std. Sanitary Corp. (E.D. Pa. 1970) 323 F.Supp. 364, 378.)

The proposed Notice fairly describes the settlement. (SA, Exh. A (“Notice”).) However, the following issues must be addressed: - If the Parties accept the Court’s proposed revisions to the class and PAGA releases, the Notice must be revised accordingly. (Notice, pp. 6-7.) - Effective April 13, 2026, the Court has moved to Department 8B in the new Tani G. Cantil- Sakauye Courthouse located at 500 G St. Sacramento, California, 95814. The Court’s Zoom link is now: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16184738886. The call-in information remains unchanged. Where an address, Courthouse name, Department, or Zoom link is provided, the Parties must use this new information. (Notice, pp. 9-10.)

With these revisions, the Notice is approved.

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007758: DREHER, et al. vs CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

The Agreement provides for a Class Counsel Fees Payment of not more than one-third of the GSA, which is currently estimated to be $766,500, and a Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment of not more than $40,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.2.) Class Counsel has entered into a Joint Prosecution and Fee-Sharing Agreement in these cases. Under the terms of the agreement, any attorneys’ fees awarded by the Court will be paid as follows: 50% to D. Law, P.C.; 25% to Matern Law Group, PC; and 25% to Haines Law Group, APC. (Haines Decl., ¶ 20.)

Plaintiffs are aware of the fee splitting agreements between Class Counsel and signed written acknowledgments. (Ibid.; Dreher Decl., ¶ 25; Saxon Decl., ¶ 23; Holden Decl., ¶ 14; Perry Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs argue that the requested fee award is reasonable and should be approved in light of their experience and knowledge; the contingent nature of the representation, and their efforts in reaching a settlement that will confer a significant benefit to the Class. (Mot., pp. 29:20-30:6.)

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 Court also preliminarily approves the Agreement’s costs allocation with the expectation that Counsel will provide a declaration, in moving for final approval, that shows actual costs.

Settlement Administrator

The Agreement designates Apex Class Action LLC (“Apex”) as Settlement Administrator and provides for an Administration Expenses Payment not to exceed $40,000. (SA, ¶¶ 1.2, 3.2.3.) Apex attests that its fees for management of this settlement will not exceed $35,500. (Hartranft Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. B.) Apex is appointed as Settlement Administrator and the allocation is reasonable and preliminarily approved.

Class Representative Service Payments

The Agreement provides for Class Representative service payments not to exceed $10,000 to each named Plaintiff, totaling $40,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.) Plaintiffs generally describe their specific actions and estimate the time they committed to the prosecution of this case. (Dreher Decl., ¶¶ 5, 12, 14-15 [80 hours]; Saxon Decl., ¶¶ 5, 12, 14 [80 hours]; Holden Decl., ¶ 4 [35 hours]; Perry Decl., ¶ 4 [55-60 hours].)

The requested service payments are preliminarily approved.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007758: DREHER, et al. vs CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

Compliance Hearing

The Court sets a Compliance Hearing for July 31, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. No later than July 24, 2026, Plaintiffs shall file (1) a copy of the operative complaint; (2) if the Parties accept the Court’s proposed revisions, evidence of the Agreement’s revision and submission of the revised Agreement to the LWDA; and (3) a revised Class Notice.

Plaintiffs shall separately file a revised Proposed Order noting the revisions and attaching the revised Notice.

If Plaintiffs adequately address the Court’s concerns, the Court will sign the revised Proposed Order, and no appearance will be required.

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 January 8, 2027 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 Dept8B@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.

[1] The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs Dreher and Saxon’s Notice of Change of Handling

Attorneys dated March 2, 2026, and therefore omitted the Agreement’s designation of Emil Davtyan and David Yeremian. (3-2-26 Notice.) [2] The “Effective Date” means “the date by when both of the following have occurred: (a) the

Court enters a Judgment on its Order Granting Final Approval of the Settlement; and (b) the Judgment is final. The Judgment is final as of the latest of the following occurrences: (a) if no Participating Class Member objects to the Settlement, 65 days after the day the Court enters Judgment; (b) if one or more Participating Class Members objects to the Settlement, the day after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal from the Judgment; or if a timely appeal from the Judgment is filed, the day after the appellate court affirms the Judgment and issues a remittitur.” (SA, ¶ 1.18.) [3] The Agreement provides that it “may be amended, modified, changed, or waived only by an

express written instrument signed by all Parties or their representatives, and approved by the Court.” (SA, ¶ 12.10 [emphasis added].) [4] Counsel does not explain why a $5 penalty was used, but this figure appears to already

discount Plaintiffs’ PAGA claims. If the Court assumed an initial penalty rate of $100 instead,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV007758: DREHER, et al. vs CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

Defendant’s maximum PAGA exposure would be $13,560,600. The PAGA allocation would represent approximately 0.74% of this maximum exposure.

The Court has ordered the Parties’ appearance. The Parties are encouraged to appear via Zoom with the links below:

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

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/courtreporters/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.

Counsel for Plaintiffs 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.