TAYLOR, et al. vs TAX SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

Further, the Court is obligated to ensure that the “agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.” (Cellphone Termination Fee Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1389.) The Court “must independently and objectively analyze the evidence and circumstances before it in order to determine whether the settlement is in the best interests of those whose claims will be extinguished.” (Kullar v.

Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 25CV141521: TAYLOR, et al. vs TAX SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; filed by Angel Tanner, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the State of California as private attorneys general, (Plaintiff) + CRS# 369018202310 in Department 17 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 130.)

Reasonableness The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether the settlement is fair. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) Relevant factors to be considered include:

1) the strength of plaintiffs' case, 2) the risk, expense, complexity, 3) the likely duration of further litigation, 4) the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, 5) the amount offered in settlement, 6) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, 7) the experience and views of counsel, 8) the presence of a governmental participant, and 9) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. (Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1801.)

The parties’ Settlement Agreement generally satisfies these requirements.

Proposed Settlement Agreement Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendant agreed to pay the Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $900,000.00 to be distributed as follows:

Class Counsel Attorney’s Fees of up to $300,000.00 Class Counsel Litigation Costs of up to $25,000.00 Service Award for Class Action Representatives of up to $10,000.00 each PAGA Penalty Fund Payment of $50,000.00 split as follows: • $32,500.00 to Labor Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) • $17,500.00 to PAGA-eligible aggrieved employees Settlement Administrator Fees of up to $15,000.00

All remaining GSA funds will be available to split between participating class members.

The Class and PAGA The proposed Settlement Class consists of all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant’s employed at any time during the period from September 8, 2021, through February 7, 2026. (Stipulation, Exs. C, § 1.13; Ex. E.) There are approximately 1,188 Class Members. (Emma Decl., Ex. A, ¶ 22.)

The proposed PAGA period consists of all current and former non-exempt employees of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV141521: TAYLOR, et al. vs TAX SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; filed by Angel Tanner, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the State of California as private attorneys general, (Plaintiff) + CRS# 369018202310 in Department 17 Defendant’s employed at any time during the period from October 10, 2023, also through February 7, 2026. (Stipulation, Exs. C § 1.14; Ex. E.)

The class as defined appears to be an “ascertainable and sufficiently numerousclass” with a “well-defined community of interest.” (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1021; Code Civ. Proc., § 382.) The court certifies this class for purposes of settlement.

Scope of Release Plaintiffs’, Participating class members’ and the State of California’s release is appropriately and narrowly limited to claims alleged in Plaintiffs’ case and the Notice. (Lacour v. Marshalls of Cal. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1172, 1194.)

Uncashed Settlement Checks The proposed Settlement Agreement indicates all settlement checks that remain uncashed for more than 180 days after issuance will be distributed to cy pres recipient Legal Aid at Work, which is appropriate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 384.)

Class Counsel, Attorney Fees & Costs Leonard Emma and law firm Employment Lawyers are approved as class counsel for purposes of this Settlement Agreement.

This Court’s benchmark for fees is 30% of the total fund. (Laffitte v. Robert Half International, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 495.)

Here, 30% of the GSA of $900,000.00 is $270,000; however, Plaintiffs seek $300,000 or 33% of the GSA. Thus, the Court will reserve its determination of final attorney fees for the final approval hearing.

Class Representative Service Payment The Court will not decide the amount of any service payment until the final approval hearing. The named Plaintiffs for whom a service payment is sought must provide evidence regarding the nature of their participation in the action, including a description of his specific actions and the amount of time he committed to the prosecution of the case. (Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 804-807.) This may be provided in connection with the hearing on final approval of this Settlement.

Claims Administrator & Fee Simpluris, Inc. is approved as the Settlement Administrator for this class action and PAGA settlement. Settlement Administrator fees of up to $10,000.00 appear to be reasonable.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV141521: TAYLOR, et al. vs TAX SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; filed by Angel Tanner, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the State of California as private attorneys general, (Plaintiff) + CRS# 369018202310 in Department 17

The Court will determine at the final approval hearing the actual amount of fees to be awarded based on a declaration from the Settlement Administrator and an itemization of costs and fees incurred in its settlement administration.

Notice & Distribution The Court approves the proposed Class Action Notice (“Notice”) that provides a detailed summary of the litigation and reasonably informs potential class members of how to object to the settlement, both in writing and in person.

For these reasons, the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the proposed settlement agreement is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order and sets a hearing for final approval for January 6, 2027, at 3:00 p.m.

The Court vacates the hearing reserved for September 16, 2026.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed”

BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV141521: TAYLOR, et al. vs TAX SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement; filed by Angel Tanner, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the State of California as private attorneys general, (Plaintiff) + CRS# 369018202310 in Department 17

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.