Devante Xavier Newman, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Strauch Management, LLC, et al.

24CV008370: DEVANTE XAVIER NEWMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs STRAUCH MANAGEMENT, LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 08/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/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.

Background

On April 28, 2024, Plaintiff gave written notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (the “LWDA”) of the alleged Labor Code violations, with certified mail service on Defendants Strauch Management LLC, Cameron Park Petroleum, Inc., M & M Fuels, Inc., Woodcreek Oaks Petroleum, Inc., and Strauch & Company (“Defendants”), and paid the required filing fee. (Moon Decl., ¶ 17, Exh. 2.) To date, the LWDA has not indicated its intent to investigate the alleged violations or intervene in this Action. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff filed a class action on April 29, 2024, which alleges Defendants systematically: (1) failed to pay minimum wages, (2) failed to pay overtime compensation, (3) failed to provide meal periods, (4) failed to authorize and permit rest periods, (5) failed to indemnify necessary business expenses, (6) failed to pay final wages at termination, (7) failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and (8) engaged in unfair business practices. (Id., ¶ 5.) On December 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint, adding a single cause of action for Civil Penalties under PAGA. (Ibid.)

On April 4, 2025, the Court tentatively granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval. (4-4- 25 Minute Order.) The Court granted preliminary approval on May 1, 2025. (5-1-25 Order.) Plaintiff now moves for preliminary approval of the Parties’ First Amended Joint Stipulation of Class and PAGA Action Settlement (“Agreement”). (Moon Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. 1 (“SA”).) Plaintiff submitted the Amended Agreement to the LWDA. (Id., ¶ 18, Exh. 3.)

Legal Standard

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. 08/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Courts review class action settlements in a three-stage process: (1) an earlier conditional review by the court; (2) a period during which notice is distributed to class members for their comments or objections; and (3) a later detailed review after the notice period when the court decides whether to give “final approval.” (Rubenstein, Newberg and Rubinstein on Class Actions (6th Ed. 2025) § 13:1 (Newberg); see also Cal. R. Ct. Rule 3.769.) This procedure, which is commonly utilized by both federal and state courts, assures class members of the protection of procedural due process safeguards and enables a court to fulfill its role as the guardian of the interest of the settlement class.

As required by the applicable Rule of Court, the Court must conduct a final approval hearing to inquire into the fairness of the proposed settlement. (Cal. R. Ct., Rule 3.769(g).) The Court has broad discretion to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair. (Mallick v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 434, 438.) The law favors settlement, particularly in class actions and other complex cases where substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, cost, and rigors of formal litigation. (See Newberg, supra, § 13:44 (and cases cited therein); Class Plaintiffs v.

City of Seattle (9th Cir. 1992) 955 F.2d 1268, 1276; Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp. (9th Cir. 1976) 529 F.2d 943, 950.) In approving a class action settlement, the Court must “satisfy itself that the class settlement is within the ‘ballpark’ of reasonableness.” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 133.) In making its fairness determination, the Court should consider the relevant factors, such as the strength of the plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expenses, 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, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. (Dunk v.

Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) “The most important factor is the strength of the case for plaintiffs on the merits, balanced against the amount offered in settlement.” (Kullar, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 130 [internal quotes omitted].) 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. (Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.)

Ultimately, the court's determination is simply “an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough justice.” (Id., at p. 1801.)

Settlement Agreement and Class Response

Here, Plaintiff represents 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.)

Under the terms of the Agreement, Defendants deny liability but agree to pay a Gross 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. 08/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

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”) –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 pro-rata 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 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 nontaxable 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.

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. 08/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

(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.)

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 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, and 2802, 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

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. 08/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

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.)

Bentley Conn, a Project Manager for Simpluris, Inc. (“Simpluris”) attests that the Courtapproved Notice was mailed, in English and Spanish, to all 2,249 individuals identified in the class data via U.S. First Class Mail on May 29, 2025, after conducting a National Change of Address database search. (Conn Decl., ¶¶ 5-8.) A total of 285 Notices were returned as undeliverable. (Id., ¶ 9.) For those without a forwarding address, Simpluris performed an advanced address search (i.e. skip trace) to obtain an updated address. (Ibid.)

Simpluris re-mailed a total of 229 Notices. (Ibid.) A total of 54 Notices have been deemed undeliverable. (Ibid.) Simpluris has not received any requests for exclusion, objections to the settlement, or workweek disputes. (Id., ¶¶ 10-13.) Accordingly, there is a total of 2,249 participating Class Members, representing 100% of the Class. Simpluris fails to provide an estimate of the average recovery for the Class Members.

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Moon Decl., ¶¶ 45-64.) Having provided sufficient information regarding damage analysis at preliminary approval, the Court is inclined to find, subject to the final fairness hearing, that the Settlement is within the ballpark of reasonableness and is entitled to a presumption of fairness, and all relevant factors presently support final 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).)

Simpluris fails to provide any information regarding the total number of Aggrieved Employees or an estimate of their average individual PAGA settlement payments. Nonetheless, having previously found Counsel’s valuation well-reasoned and persuasive at the preliminary approval stage, the PAGA Penalty is tentatively approved.

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

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. 08/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Courts generally recognize two methods for calculating fees in civil class actions: the lodestar/multiplier method and the percentage-of-recovery method. (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 254.) “The percentage method calculates the fee as a percentage share of a recovered common fund or the monetary value of plaintiffs’ recovery. The lodestar method, or more accurately the lodestar-multiplier method, calculates the fee ‘by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by counsel by a reasonable hourly rate.’” (Laffitte v.

Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 489.) In determining fees and costs to be awarded to Class Counsel, the Court must exercise its judicial function and make a decision on the propriety of the fees requested; it should not, and does not, abdicate its charge to make a decision simply because the parties may have reached their own agreement in this regard. The choice of a fee calculation method is generally one within the discretion of the trial court, the goal “being the award of a reasonable fee to compensate counsel for their efforts.” (Id. at p. 504.) “‘The lodestar method better accounts for the amount of work done, while the percentage of the fund method more accurately reflects the results achieved.’ Each has been championed and criticized for its respective advantages and disadvantages.” (Ibid., quoting Rawlings v.

Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc. (6th Cir. 1993) 9 F.3d 513, 516.)

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 the requested fee award is reasonable as a percentage of the common fund and in line with typical cases. (Mot., pp. 14:20-16:14.) Plaintiff further argues that the fee award is appropriate because this matter involves a fee-shifting provisions of the Labor Code. (Id., p. 16:15-26.) Plaintiff argues that Counsel’s experience, reputation, and ability also support the requested award. (Id., p. 17:1-13.)

Counsel attests that Moon Law Group’s lodestar is $253,260, based on 331.9 hours worked. (Moon Decl., ¶ 66.) The lodestar is broken down as follows:

Attorney Experience Rate Time Total Kane Moon 17 years $950.00 84.2 $79,990.00 Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan 8 years $850.00 98.6 $83,810.00 Michael Citrin 5 years $600.00 149.1 $89,460.00

Total: 331.9 $253,260.00

(Moon Decl., ¶¶ 48, 53, 60, 66.) While the production of actual billing entries is not required, the Court requires a summary of the legal tasks performed and the approximate hours spent on each task. Here, Counsel provides only a summary of the work performed. (Id., ¶ 78.) Counsel must provide a supplemental declaration providing this information.

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. 08/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Counsel attests that the above hourly rates are “reasonable considering [the attorney’s] years of experience practicing in the highly specialized area of employment and labor law and [their] Laffey Matrix rate.” (Moon Decl., ¶¶ 48, 53, 60.) The Court disagrees. “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. In the Court’s experience, the above hourly rates are high for this region.

Nonetheless, the Court is persuaded that the requested award of one-third of the common fund is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. Even if the Court reduced Counsel’s hourly rates to better reflect the prevailing rates in this region (to, for example, $800 for attorneys with approximately 17 years’ experience, $650 for attorneys with 8 years’ experience, and $500 for attorneys with 5 years’ experience), Counsel’s lodestar would be $206,000 and require a multiplier of 2.43. Accordingly, the requested fee award is approved.

Counsel attests to incurring a total of $23,208.76 in litigation costs. (Moon Decl., ¶ 23, Exh. 5.) The Court finds these costs reasonable and appropriate.

Settlement Administrator

Simpluris attests that its’ total costs are $19,185. (Conn Decl., ¶ 14.) The Court finds these costs reasonable and appropriate.

Class Representative Enhancement Award

The Agreement provides for an Enhancement Award to Plaintiff not to exceed $7,500. (SA, ¶ 32(o).) Plaintiff describes his efforts and estimates that he spent 25 to 30 hours prosecuting this case. (Newman Decl., ¶¶ 16-24.)

The Court finds this payment justified based on Plaintiff’s declaration and in the absence of an objection to the award.

Proposed Order

The Proposed Order references the original agreement and includes the original class release. (See Proposed Order, ¶¶ 1, 6(c).) Plaintiff seeks final approval of the Amended Agreement and the Proposed Order must be revised accordingly.

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. 08/22/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Disposition

In sum, and subject to the final fairness hearing and the supplemental filings requested, the Court tentatively concludes that the settlement is entitled to final approval.

The Court sets a Compliance Hearing for September 5, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. No later than August 29, 2025, Counsel shall file (1) a supplemental declaration supporting the lodestar, and (2) a separate Amended Proposed Order.

Provided that no objection is asserted by any Class Member at the hearing on this matter and Counsel files the requested materials, the Court will sign the Amended Proposed Order and Proposed Judgment, and no appearance will be required at the Compliance Hearing.

Any further Case Management Conferences and compliance hearings shall be handled by this Department. This Department shall monitor compliance with the settlement approval through and including the disbursement of any uncashed amount to the Unclaimed Property Fund.

The Court sets a further Compliance Hearing for July 24, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. At least 15 calendar days prior to the Compliance Hearing, Counsel shall file a declaration regarding the status of the distribution of the settlement funds. If the Court is satisfied that the settlement funds have been fully distributed, no appearance will be required.

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 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.