AL-BAZIRGAN, et al. vs BENTO BOX ENTERPRISE, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

23CV005685: AL-BAZIRGAN, et al. vs BENTO BOX ENTERPRISE, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Ghena Al-Bazirgan’s (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Bento Box Enterprise, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) joint motion for approval of the Parties’ Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) settlement is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED, subject to the Parties’ clarification on the checkcashing deadline and other missing terms. Accordingly, the Parties’ APPEARANCE IS REQUIRED.

Status Conference (Compliance Hearing) is scheduled for 08/21/2026 at 10:30 AM in Department 8B at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.

Status Conference (Distribution Compliance Hearing) is scheduled for 04/02/2027 at 10:30 AM in Department 8B at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.

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

Background

On or about July 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant alleging four causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Split Shift Premium Wages; (2) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements (Individual Only); (3) Failure to Timely Pay All Wages at Termination – Waiting Time Penalties (Individual Only); and (4) Unfair Business Practices. (Bashman Decl., ¶ 2.) When she filed the Complaint, Plaintiff believed there were at least 50 current and former employees of Defendant who were potential class members. (Id., ¶ 5.) On August 7, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a PAGA notice letter to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and Defendant. (Id., ¶ 6, Exh. A.) On December 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint adding a cause of action for PAGA penalties. (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. B.)

Through discovery, Counsel determined that this action was not suitable for class treatment. (Bashman Decl., ¶ 8.) The Parties exchanged information and documents and ultimately agreed to dismiss the class claims and focus on settling the PAGA cause of action and Plaintiff’s individual claims. (Id., ¶ 12.) On July 20, 2026, the Court granted the Parties’ joint stipulation and order to dismiss the class allegations. (7-20-26 Stipulation and Order.)

23CV005685: AL-BAZIRGAN, et al. vs BENTO BOX ENTERPRISE, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

Plaintiff now seeks approval of the Parties’ Private Attorneys General Settlement Agreement and Release (“Agreement”). (Bashman Decl., ¶ 13, Exh. D (“SA”).) Plaintiff’s Counsel provided the Agreement to the LWDA. (Id., ¶ 22, Exh. F.)

Legal Standard

The purpose of PAGA is to “create a means of ‘deputizing’ citizens as private attorneys general to enforce the Labor Code.” (Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 489, 501.) A PAGA plaintiff is an “aggrieved employee” who brings a civil action “personally and on behalf of other current or former employees to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations” as the “proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies.” (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 380; Labor Code, § 2699[1].)

The settlement of a PAGA claim requires court approval pursuant to the operative PAGA statute, which states that the “[t]he superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part.” (Lab. Code, § 2699(l)(2).) Such review and approval must “ensur[e] that any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.)

Aside from the requirement that the court “review and approve” a settlement in a civil action filed under PAGA (§ 2699(l)(2)), PAGA itself does not provide a standard for this review and approval in the majority of PAGA cases. (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 75 (Moniz) [citing Flores v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide (C.D. Cal. 2017) 253 F.Supp.3d 1074, 1075 [“[PAGA] is surprisingly short on specifics”]].) In Moniz, the First District Court of Appeal clarified that a trial court “should evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA’s purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (Id., at p. 77.)

Because many of the factors used to evaluate class action settlements bear on a settlement’s fairness – including the strength of the plaintiff’s case, the risk, the stage of the proceeding, the complexity and likely duration of further litigation, and the settlement amount – these facts can be useful in evaluating the fairness of a PAGA settlement. (Ibid.)

Analysis

Under the terms of the Agreement, Defendant denies liability, but agrees to pay a Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $14,800 to resolve Plaintiff’s PAGA claims on behalf of the PAGA Members. (SA, §§ II.G, III.I.) The PAGA Members will be automatically paid without submitting any claim form. (Id., § III.H.) The PAGA Members are Plaintiff, Lucas Malik, Duachee Lao, and Autumn Her. (Id., § II.N.)

The Agreement provides for an attorneys’ fee award to PAGA counsel of one-third of the GSA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005685: AL-BAZIRGAN, et al. vs BENTO BOX ENTERPRISE, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

($4,933.33) and actual litigation costs incurred in the amount of $237.81. (SA, § III.C.) After these deductions, the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) is approximately $9,628.86. (Id., §§ II.J, III.D.) The NSA will be distributed as follows: 75% ($7,221.65) to the LWDA and the 25% ($2,407.21) to the PAGA Members as the PAGA Representative Group Penalty Payment. (Id., §§ II.P, III.D.) The PAGA Representative Group Penalty Payment amounts shall be based on a formula taking into account the number of each PAGA Member’s Compensable Pay Periods, which refers to each pay period during which a PAGA Member performed work from August 2022 to August 2023. (Id., §§ II.C, II.M, III.D.)

Based on the data provided, each PAGA Member will be paid as follows: Plaintiff ($693.60), Lucas Malik ($408.00), Duachee Lao ($367.21), and Autumn Her ($938.40). (Id., § III.D.) The PAGA Representative Group Penalty Payments shall be reported on an IRS Form 1099. (Ibid.)

Defendant shall pay the GSA by the later of the following two dates/events, December 1, 2025 or within 14 days after the Court approves the settlement, as follows: - PAGA Representative Group Penalty Payments: A check payable to each qualifying PAGA Member in the amount of his or her PAGA Representative Group Penalty Payment and delivered to each PAGA Member, except that the check to Plaintiff shall be delivered to her Counsel. (SA, § III.H.2.) - PAGA Representative Group Counsel’s attorney’s fees and litigation costs. (Ibid.) - LWDA Penalty Payment. (Ibid.)

However, the Agreement is silent on (1) how the Parties will verify the PAGA Members’ current addresses or handle undeliverable payments; (2) how long the PAGA Representative Group Penalty Payment checks will remain valid; and (3) what will happen if the PAGA Members fail to cash their checks. Normally these functions would fall to a Settlement Administrator; however, none is contemplated here. It appears that Defendant is responsible for issuing payments directly. The Parties must confirm. The Court expects the Parties to ensure that the PAGA Representative Group Penalty Payments are mailed to the PAGA Members’ current address.

Ordinarily, if a payment is returned as undeliverable, the mailing party will conduct a skip trace to obtain a more current address. The Court prefers no less than a 180-day check cashing period. If a PAGA Member fails to cash their check, any unclaimed funds should be transmitted to the Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the PAGA Member. The Parties shall be prepared to discuss these issues at the hearing.

“Upon the payment of the [GSA] to Plaintiff, PAGA Members, and PAGA Representative Group Counsel by Defendant, Plaintiff and the State of California, on behalf of all PAGA Members, will fully release and discharge Defendant and other Released Parties from any and all claims for civil penalties under PAGA that were or could have been recovered based on the facts alleged in the PAGA Notice to the LWDA and included in the PAGA Cause of Action (collectively, ‘Released Claims’).” (SA, § III.E.) The Agreement further provides that the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005685: AL-BAZIRGAN, et al. vs BENTO BOX ENTERPRISE, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

Released Claims “include all claims that were or could have been alleged in the PAGA Notice to the LWDA and included in the Action for civil penalties under PAGA for California Labor Code violations.” (Ibid.) In light of the defined term, this second provision is duplicative and unnecessary. However, the Court will not recommend revisions.

Plaintiff’s moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was reached after sufficient investigation and arms-length negotiations. In the course of litigation and after engaging in significant investigations, formal and informal discovery, and the exchange of information, data and documents, the Parties participated in extensive settlement discussions and negotiations to try to resolve the lawsuit. (Bashman Decl., ¶ 16.) In the course of settlement negotiations, the Parties discussed all aspects of the case, including the risks and delays of further litigation and proceeding with trial, as well as the law relating to representative PAGA actions, split shifts and rest periods, split shift premium wages, wage-and-hour enforcement, civil and statutory penalties, the evidence produced and analyzed, among other things. (Ibid.)

During all settlement discussions, the Parties conducted their negotiations at arm's length in an adversarial position. (Ibid.) The PAGA Members worked a total of 59 pay periods during the PAGA Period. Awarding $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period results in an estimated PAGA exposure of $5,900. (Id., ¶ 18.) The NSA exceeds Defendant’s maximum exposure. (Ibid.)

Counsel attests to their experience litigating similar claims. (Bashman Decl., ¶ 19.) The Court finds the Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate as required under California Labor Code section 2698 et seq. The Court also finds that the Settlement Agreement provides a recovery that creates an effective substantial deterrent to any potential future non-compliance, furthering the purpose of the Labor Code and the LWDA.

Payment Letter

The Agreement provides for PAGA Payment Letter to be sent to each PAGA Member with their payments. (SA, § II.Q.) The Payment Letter fairly describes the settlement but should be revised to make clear that the Agreement only releases “claims for civil penalties under PAGA that were or could have been recovered based on the facts alleged in the PAGA Notice to the LWDA and included in the PAGA Cause of Action.”

The following language should also be included in bold letters: “This settlement does not release any individual, non-PAGA claims that you might have against Defendant.”

With these modifications, the payment letter is approved.

Attorneys’ Fee Award and Costs

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005685: AL-BAZIRGAN, et al. vs BENTO BOX ENTERPRISE, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

The Agreement provides for an attorneys’ fee award to PAGA counsel of one-third of the GSA ($4,933.33) and actual litigation costs incurred in the amount of $237.81. (SA, § III.C.) Plaintiff argues that the requested fee award is fair and reasonable as a percentage of the common fund, justified by the work performed, the skill required, the quality of work, and the contingent nature of the representation. (Mot., pp. 8:22-9:18.)

Counsel expended a total of 79.60 hours at an hourly rate of $550 per hour, resulting in a lodestar of $43,780. (Bashman Decl., ¶ 20.) Counsel provides a summary of the tasks performed and the hours spent on those tasks. (Id., ¶ 20, Exh. E.) The Court is persuaded that the requested fee award is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

Counsel attests to incurring a total of $237.81 in costs. (Bashman Decl., ¶ 21.) These costs are reasonable and appropriate.

Compliance Hearing

The Court sets a Compliance Hearing for August 21, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. No later than August 14, 2026, Plaintiff shall file a revised Payment Letter and a declaration confirming any agreements on missing terms.

If Counsel adequately addresses the Court’s concerns, the Court will sign the Proposed Order submitted with Plaintiff’s moving papers, and no appearance will be required.

Disposition

Finding no objection, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, subject to the Compliance Hearing set above.

To the extent there are any DOE Defendants in this action, they are DISMISSED.

The Court sets a further Compliance Hearing for April 2, 2027 at 10:30 a.m. At least 15 days prior to the 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.

[1] Because Plaintiff’s PAGA notice was filed before June 19, 2024, the Court cites to the earlier

applicable version of PAGA. (See Labor Code, § 2699(v)(2) [effective January 1, 2026].)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005685: AL-BAZIRGAN, et al. vs BENTO BOX ENTERPRISE, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

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

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

Parties requesting services of a court reporter may arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. The list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore is available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf.

If you are not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, a Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge. The signed form must be filed with the clerk prior to the hearing.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211). The form must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the hearing is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Counsel for 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.