DEVANTE XAVIER NEWMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs STRAUCH MANAGEMENT, LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

24CV008370: DEVANTE XAVIER NEWMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs STRAUCH MANAGEMENT, LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/04/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action Settlement in Department 22

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 (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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008370: DEVANTE XAVIER NEWMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs STRAUCH MANAGEMENT, LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/04/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action Settlement in Department 22

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, Plaintiff seek provisional certification of the following class: “all persons currently or formerly employed by Defendants, as non-exempt, hourly-paid employees from February 5, 2022 January 13, 2025.” (SA, ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff argues that provisional certification for settlement purposes is appropriate because (1) the proposed class is sufficiently numerous and ascertainable because the definition is sufficiently precise, the Class consists of about 2,249 individuals, and the Class Members can be readily identified by looking at Defendants’ records; (2) common issues of law and fact predominate because Plaintiff contends the factual and legal issues are the same for all Class Members, and further that all Class Members suffered from and seek redress for the same alleged injuries; (3) Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class because Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants and alleges he was subject to the same policies and practices as other similarly situated employees; (4) Plaintiff and his Counsel meet the adequacy requirement because Plaintiff retained experienced Counsel, Plaintiff and his Counsel have no conflicts with the Class, and Plaintiff and his Counsel have diligently litigated this case; and (5) a class action is superior to a multiplicity of litigation. (Mot., pp. 20:3-23:25.) 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 is appointed as Class Representative. (SA, p. 1:3-4.) Moon Law Group, PC is appointed as Class Counsel. (Id., ¶ 1.)

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008370: DEVANTE XAVIER NEWMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs STRAUCH MANAGEMENT, LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/04/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action Settlement in Department 22

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, Defendants deny liability but agree to pay a Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) $1,500,000 to resolve Plaintiff’s claims. (SA, ¶¶ 27, 32(c), 52.) To the extent any portion of the Settlement Class Payments constitutes wages, Defendants will be separately responsible for any employer payroll taxes required by law. (Id., ¶¶ 32(c), 32(h).) No portion of the GSA will revert to Defendants. (Id., ¶ 32(e).) Class Members will not be required to submit a claim to receive their Settlement Class Payment. (Id., ¶ 32(f).) Defendants will fund the settlement account within 14 calendar days of the Effective Date, which, if there are no objections to the Settlement, is the date of Final Approval by the Court. (Id., ¶¶ 32(b), 32(s).)

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA: 1. Attorney’s Fees (not to exceed one-third of the GSA, or $500,000); 2. Litigation Costs (not to exceed $25,000); 3. the Enhancement Award to Plaintiff (not to exceed $7,500); 4. the PAGA Penalty Payment ($50,000), with 75% ($37,500) allocated to the LWDA and 25% ($12,500) allocated to the PAGA Employees; and 5. Settlement Administration Costs (estimated not to exceed $19,185).

(SA, ¶¶ 32(g), 32(n), 32(o), 32(q), 32(r), 36.) The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) – is approximately $898,315 and will be allocated as Settlement Class Payments. (Id., ¶¶ 32(g), 32(j).) Each Settlement Class Member will be paid a pro-rata share of the NSA calculated by the Settlement Administrator. (Id., ¶ 32(j).) The pro-rata share will be determined by comparing the total number of Covered Workweeks worked by a Class Member during the Class Period to the total number of Covered Workweeks worked by all Settlement Class Members during the Class Period as follows: [Covered Workweeks worked by Settlement Class Member] ÷ [Sum of all Covered Workweeks worked by all Settlement Class Members] × [NSA] = individual Settlement Payment for Settlement Class Member. (Ibid.)

Similarly, the Aggrieved Employees portion of the PAGA penalty payment will be paid a pro-rata share of the PAGA Settlement Payment calculated by the Settlement Administrator. (Id., ¶ 32(k).) The prorata share will be determined by comparing the total number of PAGA Pay Periods worked by the PAGA Employee during the PAGA Period to the total number of PAGA Pay Periods worked by all PAGA Employees during the PAGA Period as follows: [PAGA Pay Periods worked by PAGA Employee] ÷ [Sum of all PAGA Pay Periods worked by all PAGA Employees] × [PAGA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008370: DEVANTE XAVIER NEWMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs STRAUCH MANAGEMENT, LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/04/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action Settlement in Department 22

Settlement Payment] = individual PAGA Settlement Payment for PAGA Employee. (Ibid.) The Parties have agreed that Settlement Class Payments will be allocated as follows: 20% to taxable wages, 80% to non-taxable penalties and interest. (Id., ¶ 32(l).) The PAGA Settlement Payment will be entirely allocated to penalties. (Ibid.) To the extent required by law, IRS Forms 1099 and W-2 will be issued to each Settlement Class Member and PAGA Employee with respect to such payments. (Ibid.) Settlement Payment checks shall remain valid and negotiable for 180 calendar days from the date of their issuance. (Id., ¶ 39.)

Settlement Payment checks will automatically be voided by the Settlement Administrator if they are not cashed by the Settlement Class Member within that time, and the Settlement Class Member’s relevant claims will remain released by the Settlement. (Ibid.) Funds from uncashed or abandoned Settlement Class Payment checks or PAGA Settlement Payment checks, based on a 180-day void date, shall be transmitted by the Settlement Administrator to the State of California’s Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Settlement Class Member who failed to cash his or her check. (Id., ¶¶ 32(j), 32(k), 40.)

Within 14 calendar days from the date of preliminary approval of this Settlement by the Court, Defendants shall provide to the Settlement Administrator a class database containing identifying information. (SA, ¶ 37(a).) Each Class Member will be mailed a Notice setting forth the material terms of the Settlement, along with instructions about how to object or request exclusion from the Settlement. (Id., ¶ 32(u).) A Class Member may also dispute the pre-printed information on the Notice as to his or her Covered Workweeks during the Class Period or PAGA Pay Periods during the PAGA Period. (Ibid.)

The Notice will be issued in English and Spanish. (Id., ¶¶ 32(v), 37.) Within 14 calendar days after the Class database is provided to the Settlement Administrator, the Settlement Administrator will mail the Notices to the Class Members by First Class United States mail. (Id., ¶ 37(b).) Class Members will have 45 days after the Settlement Administrator initially mails the Notice to submit a workweek dispute, request exclusion from the settlement, and/or object to the settlement. (Id., ¶¶ 19, 32(x), 32(y).)

In the case of a remailed Notice, the Response Deadline will be 15 calendar days from re-mailing. (Id., ¶ 19.)

The Agreement provides that “Class Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel may, at least five (5) calendar days (or some other number of days as the Court shall specify) before the Final Approval Hearing, file responses to any written objections submitted to the Court.” (SA, ¶ 32(y).) Any written responses should be filed with Plaintiff’s moving papers, at least 16 court days before the final approval hearing.

Upon final approval by the Court of this Settlement and Defendants’ payment of all sums due pursuant to this Settlement, the Class Representative, each Settlement Class Member, and each PAGA Employee (regardless of whether they have requested exclusion from the Settlement of Class claims), will release claims as follows: - “Plaintiff and the members of the Settlement Class who do not opt out of the settlement

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008370: DEVANTE XAVIER NEWMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs STRAUCH MANAGEMENT, LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/04/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action Settlement in Department 22

will release Releasees from all claims as pled in the Complaint including claims for (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; (3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (4) Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; (5) Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; (6) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; (7) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and (8) Unfair Business Practices; based on the allegations in the Complaint. This also includes any and all claims alleged or that could have been alleged based on the facts of the Complaint for unpaid wages, and all other associated damages and/or penalties, including but not limited to claims under Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512, 558, 1174, 1174.5, 1194, 1194.2 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800, 2802, 2699 et seq. all applicable IWC Wage Orders, and Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

For Plaintiff and the members of the Settlement Class who do not opt out of the settlement, the Settlement Class Release shall include all released claims which arose during the Class Period.” (SA, ¶¶ 42, 42(c).) - “Plaintiff and the members of the PAGA Group will release Releasees from all claims as pled in the Complaint and the PAGA Notice for violation of California Labor Code section 2698, et seq. (‘PAGA’) based on the allegations in the Complaint as well as any and all PAGA claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in the Complaint and the PAGA Notice. [] This also includes any and all PAGA claims alleged or that could have been alleged based on the facts of Plaintiff’s Complaint and the PAGA Notice including but not limited to claims for civil penalties under Labor Code section 2698, et seq., for alleged violations of Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512, 558, 1174, 1174.5, 1194, 1194.2 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800, 2802, and all applicable IWC Wage Orders.” (Id., ¶¶ 42, 42(d).)

The Released Claims and Released PAGA Claims will be released upon the later of (1) the Effective Date, or (2) the satisfaction of Defendants’ obligation to provide to the Settlement Administrator a sum in the amount required to satisfy all required payments and distributions pursuant to this Settlement and the Order and Judgment of final approval. (SA, ¶ 42(b).) Settlement Class Members will not release the Released Claims and PAGA Employees will not release the Released PAGA Claims until both the Effective Date of the Settlement has occurred and Defendants have paid all amounts owing under the Settlement. (Ibid.) Plaintiff is subject to a general release. (Id., ¶ 43.)

Generally, in cases involving both class and PAGA claims, the settlement should include separate releases for the Class Members and the Aggrieved Employees. (Checklist, § I, ¶¶ 11, 14.) Here, the released Class claims include a reference to PAGA claims. (SA, ¶ 42(c) [“2699 et seq.”].) This language is duplicative and unnecessary in light of the separate PAGA release. The Court is inclined to conclude that this reference should be removed. The Parties shall be prepared

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008370: DEVANTE XAVIER NEWMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs STRAUCH MANAGEMENT, LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/04/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action Settlement in Department 22

to discuss the Court’s concerns, including whether they agree to the Court’s proposed revision.

Plaintiff’s moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was reached after sufficient investigation and arms-length negotiations. In preparation for mediation, the Parties agreed to a protocol for an informal exchange of documents and information before mediation. (Moon Decl., ¶ 7.) Prior to mediation, Plaintiff obtained from Defendants, through informal discovery, documents and data that were necessary and helpful to evaluate the claims asserted in this action. (Ibid.) Defendants produced a statistically significant sample of time and pay records for the putative Class, Plaintiff’s personnel file, and Defendants’ written policies.

Defendants also provided information regarding the estimated number of current and formerly employed Class Members, PAGA Employees, and PAGA Pay Periods. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s Counsel reviewed and analyzed all the information Defendants provided, including the sample records and documents regarding Defendants’ wage and hour policies. (Id., ¶ 8.) On January 13, 2025, the Parties participated in a full day of private mediation before Steven Rottman, Esq. (Id., ¶ 9.) After extensive negotiations and discussions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’ defenses, a settlement was reached by the Parties. (Ibid.)

Based on Defendant’s pre-mediation representations and/or productions, Plaintiff estimated Defendant’s exposure as follows:

Claim Maximum Discount Realistic Exposure Exposure Unpaid Wages $385,903.85 Discounted based on a 25% $96,475.96 (Off-the-Clock) probability of prevailing on class certification and the merits Unpaid Wages $37,702.60 Discounted based on a 50% $18,851.30 (Regular Rate) probability of prevailing on class certification and the merits Meal Period $365,855.35 Discounted based on a 50% $182,927.68 Violations probability of prevailing on class certification and the merits Rest Period $4,450,052.40 Discounted based on a 25% $1,112,513.10 Violations probability of prevailing on class certification and the merits Unreimbursed $112,450.00 Discounted based on a 25% $28,112.50 Business Expenses probability of prevailing on class Violations certification and the merits Labor Code § 203 $5,064,132.00 Discounted based on a 5% $253,206.60 probability of prevailing on class

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008370: DEVANTE XAVIER NEWMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs STRAUCH MANAGEMENT, LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/04/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action Settlement in Department 22

certification and the merits Labor Code § 226 $1,820,200.00 Discounted based on a 5% $91,010.00 probability of prevailing on class certification and the merits PAGA $1,886,500.00 Discounted based on a 5% $94,325.00 probability of prevailing on class certification and the merits

Total: $14,122,796.20 $1,877,422.14

(Moon Decl., ¶¶ 27-34.) Counsel provides the underlying assumptions and methodologies for these estimates. (Ibid.) Counsel also describes Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendants’ defenses, and the risks of continued litigation. (Id., ¶¶ 6, 27-35.) The GSA therefore represents approximately 10.62% of Defendants’ maximum exposure and 79.90% of Defendants’ realistic exposure. (Id., ¶ 34.) Each Participating Class Member is eligible to receive an average net benefit of approximately $399.43, representing approximately 20.1 hours of work. (Id., ¶ 39.)

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Moon Decl., ¶¶ 45-62.) Counsel attests to their belief that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and is in the best interest of the Class. (Id., ¶¶ 26, 71.) 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 a PAGA Penalty Payment of $50,000, with 75% ($37,500) allocated to the LWDA and 25% ($12,500) allocated to the PAGA Employees. (SA, ¶ 32(r).) “Aggrieved Employees” or “PAGA Employees” means all persons currently or formerly employed by Defendants, as non-exempt, hourly-paid employees from April 29, 2023 through January 13, 2025. (Id., ¶ 15.) As discussed above, the Aggrieved Employees’ portion of the PAGA settlement will be allocated on a pro-rata basis and the Aggrieved Employees are subject to a separate release. (Id., ¶¶ 32(k), 42(d).) The Agreement makes clear that PAGA Employees will not be permitted to exclude themselves from this portion of the Settlement. (Id., ¶¶ 32(k), 32(w).)

Counsel estimated Defendants’ maximum PAGA exposure to be $1,886,500, based on 18,865 pay periods and a $100 initial penalty per pay period. (SA, ¶ 27.) However, Counsel discounted this estimate based on a 5% probability of success, resulting in a realistic exposure of $94,325. (Ibid.) Counsel acknowledged that there is a possibility of the Court not awarding the PAGA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008370: DEVANTE XAVIER NEWMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs STRAUCH MANAGEMENT, LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/04/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action Settlement in Department 22

penalties even if Plaintiff prevailed on the merits due to the largely discretionary nature of awarding PAGA penalties. (Id., ¶ 35.) The Agreement’s allocation represents approximately 2.65% of Defendants’ maximum exposure and approximately 53.01% of Defendants’ realistic exposure. (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. Radiator & Std. Sanitary Corp. (E.D. Pa. 1970) 323 F.Supp. 364, 378.)

The Notice fairly describes the settlement. (Moon Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. 1, Exh. A (“Notice”).) However, the following issues must be addressed: - The Notice asserts that “A total of One Hundred Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($100,000.00) has been allocated to the PAGA Allocation. Of this amount, 75% (i.e., $75,000.00) will be paid to California’s LWDA (‘PAGA Penalty Payment’), and 25% (i.e., $25,000.00) (‘PAGA Settlement Payment;) will be paid on a pro rata basis to PAGA Employees.” (Notice, p. 4.)

However, the Agreement actually provides for a PAGA payment of $50,000. (SA, ¶ 32(r).) The Notice must be corrected. - The Notice must accurately describe the Class and PAGA releases. The Notice’s descriptions should be consistent with the terms of the Agreement. For example, regarding the Class Notice, the description adds the phrase “and (9) Civil Penalties Under PAGA based on the allegations in the operative complaint.” (Notice, p. 5.) However, this language is not included in the Class release. (SA, ¶ 42(c).)

It should be removed. Moreover, if the Parties accept the Court’s proposed revision, the statutory reference to PAGA (“2699 et seq”) should also be removed. Both the Class and PAGA release descriptions refer to “any further amended pleadings as necessary” and “any amended complaint[s].” (Notice, pp. 5-6.) The Court is not aware of any contemplated further amendments here and this language risks confusion. Finally, with regard to the PAGA release, the description only refers to the claims and factual allegations in the operative complaint, not the LWDA notice. (Compare Notice, p. 6 to SA, ¶ 42(d).)

The Court generally recommends Parties utilize the language of the settlement agreement when describing the releases. - The Court will generally hear from any class members who attend the final approval

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008370: DEVANTE XAVIER NEWMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs STRAUCH MANAGEMENT, LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/04/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action Settlement in Department 22

hearing and ask to speak regarding their objections, regardless of whether they have submitted written objections in advance. (Checklist, § I “Notice to the Class” ¶ 11.) Moreover, the Agreement provides that “[t]o object, the Settlement Class Member may (1) appear at the Final Approval Hearing, remotely or in person, to explain any objection, (2) have an attorney object for the Settlement Class Member, or (3) submit a written brief or statement setting forth the basis of the objection to the Settlement Administrator.” (SA, ¶ 32(y).) The Notice should make clear that Class Members may object at the final approval hearing, even if they have not submitted written objections. (Notice, p. 7.)

With these revisions, the Notice is approved.

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

The Agreement provides for the payment of attorneys’ fees not to exceed one-third of the GSA or $500,000, and the reimbursement of litigation costs not to exceed $25,000. (SA, ¶¶ 32(n), 36.) Plaintiff argues that Counsel will seek an award of attorneys’ fees on the percentage of the common fund theory, which is reasonable and appropriate. (Mot., pp. 16:1-17:2.) Plaintiff further argues that the requested award is (1) in line with typical cases, (2) appropriate under the Labor Code fee-shifting provisions, and (3) supported by Counsel’s experience, reputation, and ability. (Id., pp. 17:3-18:16.)

The requested fees payment 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 will not make any rulings on the reasonableness of Counsel’s hourly rates until final approval. However, because Counsel has provided extensive discussion of his hourly rates in support of the instant motion (Moon Decl., ¶¶ 48, 53, 60, Exhs. 6-8), the Court urges Counsel to carefully review the checklist and the Court’s prior orders in advance of final approval. “The determination of the ‘market rate’ is generally based on the rates prevalent in the community where the court is located.” (Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 701; see also PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1094.) As the Court has previously explained and Counsel is well aware, the prevailing rates in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. are not the prevailing rates in Sacramento.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008370: DEVANTE XAVIER NEWMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs STRAUCH MANAGEMENT, LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/04/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action Settlement in Department 22

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 Simpluris as Settlement Administrator and allocates an amount not to exceed $19,185 for settlement administration costs. (SA, ¶¶ 32(p), 32(q).) Simpluris estimates that its costs will be $19,185. (Moon Decl., ¶ 22, Exh. 4.) Simpluris is appointed as Settlement Administrator and the allocation is reasonable and preliminarily approved.

Class Representative Enhancement Award

The Agreement provides for an enhancement award of up to $7,500 for Plaintiff’s service as Class Representative and in exchange for a general release. (SA, ¶ 32(o).) Plaintiff describes his efforts and estimates that he spent between 25 to 30 hours prosecuting this action. (Newman Decl., ¶¶ 18-24.)

The requested enhancement award is preliminarily approved.

Compliance Hearing

The Court sets a Compliance Hearing for April 18, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. No later than April 11, 2025, Plaintiff must file (1) a revised Notice and redline copy for the Court’s review and (2) a revised Proposed Order, correcting the final approval hearing and attaching the revised Notice.

If the Parties accept the Court’s proposed revision to the Class release, Counsel shall also file proof of the Agreement’s amendment and revise Paragraph 7(c) of the revised Proposed Order accordingly.

If the Parties adequately address the Court’s concerns, the Court will sign the revised Proposed Order to be submitted, 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 August 22, 2025 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008370: DEVANTE XAVIER NEWMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs STRAUCH MANAGEMENT, LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/04/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action Settlement in Department 22

hearing accordingly.

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

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/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.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008370: DEVANTE XAVIER NEWMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs STRAUCH MANAGEMENT, LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 04/04/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action Settlement in Department 22

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.