CERVANTES vs KJAX INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

24CV005979: CERVANTES vs KJAX INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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. 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,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005979: CERVANTES vs KJAX INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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 seeks provisional certification of the following class: “all persons employed by Defendant in California and classified as a nonexempt, hourly employee who worked for Defendant during the Class Period.” (SA, ¶ 1.5.) The Class Period is the period from March 28, 2020 to May 17, 2025. (Id., ¶ 1.12.)

Plaintiff argues that provisional certification is appropriate because (1) the Class of approximately 198 individuals is sufficiently numerous and have already been identified by reference to Defendant’s payroll and personnel records; (2) common issues of fact and law predominate because Plaintiff has alleged a single scheme relating to Defendant’s wage and hour policies; (3) Plaintiff’s claims are typical because Plaintiff was employed by Defendant during the Class Period and was subject to the allegedly unlawful policies and practices at issue in this litigation; (4) Plaintiff is an adequate representative because his interests are aligned with the class, has no conflicts of interest, and retained experienced Counsel; and (5) the class action mechanism is superior to individualized actions. (Mot., pp. 6:19-9:27.) 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 preliminarily appointed as Class Representative. (SA, ¶ 1.13.) Emil Davtyan, David Yeremian, and Natalie Haritoonian of D.Law, Inc. 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.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005979: CERVANTES vs KJAX INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Under the terms of the Agreement, Defendant denies liability, but agrees to pay a Gross Settlement Amount (“MSA”) of $150,000 to resolve Plaintiff’s claims. (SA, ¶¶ 1.22, 3.1, 12.1.) Defendant shall separately pay any and all employer payroll taxes owed on the wage portions of Individual Class Payments. (Id., ¶ 3.1.) 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. (Ibid.) None of the GSA will revert to Defendant. (Ibid.) Defendant shall fully fund the GSA, and also fund the amounts necessary to fully pay Defendant’s share of payroll taxes, by transmitting the funds to the Administrator no later than 30 days after the Effective Date.[1] (Id., ¶ 4.3.)

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA: - A Class Representative service payment of not more than $5,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.) - A Class Counsel fees payment of not more than one-third, which is currently estimated to be $50,000, and a Class Counsel litigation expenses payment of not more than $20,000. (Id., ¶ 3.2.2.) - An Administrator Expenses Payment not to exceed $6,990, except for a showing of good cause and as approved by the Court. (Id., ¶ 3.2.3.) - PAGA Penalties in the amount of $10,000 to be paid from the GSA, with 75% ($7,500) allocated to the LWDA PAGA Payment and 25% ($2,500) allocated to the Individual PAGA Payments. (Id., ¶ 3.2.5.)

The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) – is approximately $58,010 and will be distributed to the Participating Class Members 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 Aggrieved Employees’ share of the PAGA Penalties will be distributed on a pro rata basis as Individual PAGA Payments. (Id., ¶¶ 1.24, 3.2.5.)

The Administrator will calculate each Individual PAGA Payment by (a) dividing the amount of the Aggrieved Employees’ 25% share of PAGA Penalties $2,500.00 by the total number of PAGA Period Pay Periods worked by all Aggrieved Employees during the PAGA Period and (b) multiplying the result by each Aggrieved Employee’s PAGA Period Pay Periods. (Id., ¶ 3.2.5.1.)

Within 14 days after Defendant 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 Individual Class or PAGA Payment checks, the Administrator must update the recipients’ mailing addresses using the National Change of Address Database. (Ibid.) Within 7 days of receiving a returned check the Administrator must re-mail checks to the USPS forwarding address provided or to an address

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005979: CERVANTES vs KJAX INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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, and the Administrator will cancel all checks not cashed by the void date. (Id., ¶ 4.4.1.) 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 the California Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Class Member. (Id., ¶ 4.4.3.)

For tax purposes, 20% of each Participating Class Member’s Individual Class Payment will be allocated to settlement of wage claims and will be reported on an IRS W-2 Form. (Id., ¶ 3.2.4.1.) The remaining 80% will be allocated to 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 of the Settlement, 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 United States Postal Service (“USPS”) mail, the Class Notice with Spanish translation. (Id., ¶ 7.4.2.) Not later than 3 business days after the Administrator’s receipt of any Class Notice returned by the USPS as undelivered, the Administrator shall re-mail the Class Notice using any forwarding address provided by the USPS. (Id., ¶ 7.4.3.)

If the USPS does not provide a forwarding address, the Administrator shall conduct a Class Member Address Search, and re-mail the Class Notice to the most current address obtained. (Ibid.) Class Members will have 60 days after the Administrator mails the Notice to submit requests for exclusion, written objections, and/or challenges to their work weeks. (Id., ¶¶ 1.43, 7.5.1, 7.6, 7.7.2.) Class Members to whom Notice Packets are resent after having been returned undeliverable to the Administrator shall have an additional 14 calendar days beyond the date the Response Deadline has expired. (Id., ¶¶ 1.43, 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, Plaintiff, Class Members and Aggrieved Employees will release claims against all Released Parties as follows:” - Plaintiff is subject to a general release. (SA, ¶¶ 5, 5.1.) - “All Participating Class Members, [] release Released Parties from (i) all claims that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, based on the Class Period facts stated in the Operative Complaint (as well as Class Period facts ascertained in the course of the Action) including, but not limited to, any and all claims involving any (a) failure to pay minimum wages; (b) failure to pay overtime wages; (c) failure to provide meal periods or timely meal periods; (d) failure to provide rest periods or timely rest periods; (e) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (f) failure to timely pay wages including wages due upon termination; (g) failure to maintain accurate records; (h) failure to reimburse business expenses; (i) violation of Business & Professions Code §

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005979: CERVANTES vs KJAX INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

17200, et. seq. Except as set forth in Section 5.4 [sic] of this Agreement, 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, or claims based on facts occurring outside the Class Period.” (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 PAGA Period facts stated in the Operative Complaint, and the PAGA Notice and ascertained in the course of the Action including, but not limited to any and all claims involving any (a) failure to pay minimum wages; (b) failure to pay overtime wages; (c) failure to provide meal periods or timely meal periods; (d) failure to provide rest periods or timely rest periods; (e) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (f) failure to timely pay wages including wages due upon termination; (g) failure to maintain accurate records; (h) failure to reimburse business expenses; (i) violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200, et. seq.; and (j) violation of Labor Code § 2698, et seq.” (Id., ¶¶ 5, 5.3 [emphasis added].)

The Court is concerned that the emphasized phrases above concerning facts “ascertained in the course of the Action” are not appropriate and render the releases overbroad. Moreover, as a practical matter, the phrases provide no clarity as to the scope of the releases because those facts are undefined and not reasonably knowable to any future litigant or court attempting to resolve res judicata issues. Accordingly, the Court believes they should be removed. The Parties shall be prepared to address the Court’s concerns, including whether they are agreeable to removing the language.[2]

Plaintiff’s moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was reached after sufficient investigation and arm’s length negotiations. Before filing the lawsuit, Counsel investigated and researched the facts and circumstances underling the pertinent issues. (Haritoonian Decl., ¶ 13.) After filing the lawsuit, Counsel conducted a thorough investigation, including (1) conducting informal discovery; (2) reviewing and analyzing a sampling of time and pay records; (3) researching the applicable law and potential defenses; (4) constructing damage models; and (5) reviewing information provided by Defendant at mediation. (Id., ¶ 14.)

On March 17, 2025, the Parties mediated this case with Jason Marsili, a respected and highly experienced mediator in wage and hour class actions. (Id., ¶ 16.) The Parties did not settle at mediation, but continued to negotiate afterwards, leading the parties to agree to settle the lawsuit according to the terms of the Agreement. (Ibid.)

Claim Maximum Exposure Unpaid Wage Claim $151,101.95 Meal Period Claim $49,877.01 Rest Period Claim $49,877.01

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005979: CERVANTES vs KJAX INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Wage Statement Claim $245,250.00 Waiting Time Penalties $657,873.60 Reimbursement of Business Claim $9,900.00 PAGA $252,400.00

Total: $1,416,279.57

(Haritoonian Decl., ¶¶ 29-56.) The Court notes that the summary incorrectly values the meal and rest period claims at $20,320.26 each. (Id., ¶ 29.) Counsel adequately describes Plaintiff’s claims, Defendant’s defenses, the exposures above, and the risks of continued litigation. (Id., ¶¶ 27-60.) The Court will not require supplemental briefing under the circumstances, but, going forward, Counsel is expected to provide a complete exposure analysis that complies with the Court’s Checklist, including by providing a realistic exposure. The GSA represents approximately 10.59% of Defendant’s maximum exposure.

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Haritoonian Decl., ¶¶ 3-9.) Counsel attests to their belief that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Id., ¶¶ 17.) 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

The Agreement provides for PAGA civil penalties of $10,000 to be paid from the GSA, allocated 25% to the Aggrieved Employees ($2,500) and 75% to the LWDA ($7,500). (SA, ¶ 1.34.) The Aggrieved Employees are all persons employed by Defendant in California and classified as non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant during the PAGA Period. (Id., ¶ 1.4.) The “PAGA Period” means “the period from March 28, 2023 to May 17, 2025.” (Id., ¶ 1.31.) As discussed above, the Aggrieved Employees’ portion will be allocated on a pro rata basis and the Aggrieved Employees are subject to a separate release. (Id., ¶¶ 3.2.5.1, 5.3.) The Agreement makes clear that Aggrieved Employees cannot opt out of the PAGA portion of the settlement. (Id., ¶ 7.5.4.)

Counsel estimated Defendant’s maximum exposure to be $252,400, based on $100 per pay period for the 2,524 pay periods. (Hartoonian Decl., ¶ 53.) However, due to the discretionary nature of PAGA penalties, Counsel believed it was unlikely the Court would award the full penalty and would substantially reduce any penalties awarded. (Ibid.) The PAGA allocation represents approximately 3.96% of Defendant’s maximum exposure. The Court finds the PAGA allocation reasonable under the circumstances and is entitled to a presumption of fairness and it is preliminarily approved.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005979: CERVANTES vs KJAX INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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 Notice fairly describes the settlement. (SA, Exh. A (“Notice”).) However, the following issues must be addressed: - The Notice states that “Plaintiff and Class Counsel strongly believe the Settlement is a good deal for you because they believe that: (1) Defendant has agreed to pay a fair, reasonable and adequate amount considering the strength of the claims and the risks and uncertainties of continued litigation; and (2) Settlement is in the best interests of the Class Members and Aggrieved Employees.” (Notice, pp. 3-4.)

The Court finds this language is unnecessary and may improperly discourage class members from objecting to the settlement. Accordingly, it must be removed. - If the Parties accept the Court’s proposed revisions to the Class and PAGA releases, the Notice must be revised accordingly. (Id., 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. Where an address and/or Department for the Court is inserted into the Notice, the Parties should use this new information. (Id., p. 9.) - The Notice should inform Participating Class Members that if they desire to appear remotely at the final approval hearing, they can join via the Department’s Zoom link or phone number and provide the following access information for the appropriate Department in the Notice: To join by Zoom link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16184738886; To join by phone: (833) 568-8864 / ID: 16184738886. (Ibid.)

With these revisions, the Notice is approved.

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

The Agreement provides for a Class Counsel fees payment of not more than one-third, which is currently estimated to be $50,000, and a Class Counsel litigation expenses payment of not more than $20,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.2.) Plaintiff argues that the requested fee award is reasonable as a percentage of the common fund and/or the lodestar method, and well within the range of reasonableness. (Mot., pp. 21:10-23:10.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005979: CERVANTES vs KJAX INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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 $6,990. (SA, ¶¶ 1.2, 3.2.3.) Apex’s not to exceed bid is $6,990. (Sutherland Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. B.)

Apex is appointed as Settlement Administrator and the allocation is reasonable and preliminarily approved.

Class Representative Service Payment

The Agreement provides for a Class Representative service payment of not more than $5,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.) Plaintiff describes her efforts and generally asserts that she “invested significant time” and “devoted numerous hours,” but fails to provide an estimate of the time spent. Plaintiff must do so now. (See Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 804-807.)

Compliance Hearing

The Court sets a Compliance Hearing for August 7, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. No later than July 31, 2026, Plaintiff shall file (1) a supplemental declaration supporting Plaintiff’s service payment; (2) if the Parties accept the Court’s proposed revisions, proof of the Agreement’s amendment and submission of the amended Agreement to the LWDA; and (3) a revised Notice and redline copy for the Court’s review.

If Plaintiff adequately addresses the Court’s concerns, the Court will sign the Proposed Order submitted with the moving papers, correcting the Department references throughout and adding the Final Approval hearing set below at paragraph 21.

Final Approval Hearing

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005979: CERVANTES vs KJAX INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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 “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, 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.) [2] 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, ¶ 12.9.)

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005979: CERVANTES vs KJAX INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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 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.