STEVANS vs KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;, et al.

Plaintiff now seeks preliminary approval of the Parties’ Class Action and PAGA Settlement

24CV011425: STEVANS vs KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;, et al. 07/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

Agreement (“Agreement”). (Han Decl., ¶ 26, Exh. 2 (“SA”).) Plaintiff submitted the Agreement to the LWDA. (Id., ¶ 26, fn. 6, Exh. 8; Castro Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 1.)

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.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011425: STEVANS vs KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;, et al. 07/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

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, 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 current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of Defendants working within the State of California at any time during the Class Period.” (SA, § A.5.) The Class Period means “the period from June 10, 2020, through August 15, 2025.” (Id., § A.12.)

Plaintiff argues that provisional certification is appropriate because (1) the proposed class of approximately 555 class members is sufficiently numerous and ascertainable; (2) common issues predominate because Plaintiff contends that all class members were subject to the same or similar employment practices, policies, and procedures; (3) Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class’s claims because Plaintiff is a former employee that was injured by Defendant’s common policies and practices; (4) Plaintiff is an adequate representative because Plaintiff has diligently represented the class, actively participated in the litigation, and has no interest adverse to the class; and (5) a class action is superior to numerous individual actions. (Mot., pp. 19:16-22:16.) 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 Class Representative. (SA, § A.13.) Justice Law Corporation is preliminarily appointed as Class Counsel. (Id., § A.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:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011425: STEVANS vs KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;, et al. 07/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

(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 agrees to pay a Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $2,000,000 to resolve Plaintiff’s claims. (SA, §§ A.21, C.1, K.3.) Defendants shall separately pay any and all employer payroll taxes owed on the wage portions of the Individual Class Payments. (Id., § C.1.) The Administrator will disburse the entire GSA without asking or requiring the Participating Class Members or Aggrieved Employees to submit any claim as a condition of payment. (Ibid.) None of the GSA will revert to Defendants. (Ibid.) Defendants shall fund the GSA and all employer payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portion of the Individual Class Payments by transmitting the funds to the Administrator no later than 14 calendar days after the Effective Date. [1] (Id., § D.2.)

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA: - A Class Counsel fees payment of up to $700,000 (35% of the GSA) and a Class Counsel litigation expenses payment of up to $35,000. (SA, § C.2.a.) - A Class Representative service payment of $10,000 to Plaintiff. (Id., § C.2.c.) - An administration expenses payment of up to $15,000, except for a showing of good cause and as approved by the Court. (Id., § C.2.c.) - PAGA Penalties of $150,000 to be paid from the GSA, 65% of which ($97,500) will be allocated to the LWDA as the LWDA PAGA Payment and 35% of which ($52,500) will be allocated to the Aggrieved Employees as Individual PAGA Payments. (Id., § C.2.d.)

The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) – is approximately $1,090,000 and will be distributed to the Participating Class Members on a pro rata basis as Individual Class Payments. (SA, §§ A.22, A.27.) An Individual Class Payment is 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 during the Class Period. (Id., § C.2.e.)

Similarly, the Aggrieved Employees’ portion of the PAGA Penalties will be distributed on a pro rata basis as Individual PAGA Payments. (Id., § A.23.) An Individual PAGA Payment is calculated by: (a) dividing the amount of the 35% share of PAGA Penalties ($52,500) by the total number of PAGA Pay Periods worked by all Aggrieved Employees during the PAGA Period; and (b) multiplying the result by each Aggrieved Employee’s PAGA Pay Periods during the PAGA Period. (Id., § C.2.d.i.) For tax purposes, 10% of the Individual Class Payments will be allocated to the settlement of wage claims (the “Wage Portion”), which will be reported on IRS Form W-2; and 45% will be allocated to the settlement of claims for interest and 45% will be allocated to the settlement of claims for penalties (the “Non-Wage Portion”), which will be reported on an IRS Form 1099. (Id., § C.2.e.i.)

The Administrator will report the Individual PAGA Payments on IRS Form 1099.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011425: STEVANS vs KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;, et al. 07/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

(Id., § C.2.d.iii.)

No later than 14 calendar days after Defendants fund the GSA and all employer payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portion, the Administrator will mail checks distributing the settlement. (SA, § D.3.) 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 United States Postal Service (“USPS”) mail, postage prepaid. (Id., § D.3.a.) Before mailing any checks, the Administrator must update the recipients’ mailing addresses using the National Change of Address database. (Ibid.)

Within 7 calendar days of receiving a returned check, the Administrator will remail checks to the USPS forwarding address provided or to an address ascertained through the Class Member Address Search. (Id., § D.3.b.) The face of each check shall state checks that are not cashed within 180 calendar days after the date of mailing will be voided. (Id., § D.3.a.) The Administrator will cancel all checks not cashed by the void date. (Ibid.) For any Class Member whose 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., § D.3.c.)

No later than 14 calendar days after the Court grants Preliminary Approval, Defendants will deliver the Class Data to the Administrator. (SA, § G.4.a.) Using best efforts to perform as soon as possible, and no later than 14 calendar days after receiving the Class Data, the Administrator will send to all Class Members identified in the Class Data the Class Notice via first-class USPS mail. (Id., § G.4.c.) No later than 3 business days after the Administrator’s receipt of any Class Notice returned by the USPS as undelivered, the Administrator shall remail the Class Notice using any forwarding address provided by the USPS. (Id., §G.4.d.)

If the USPS does not provide a forwarding address, the Administrator shall conduct a Class Member Address Search and remail the Class Notice to the most current address obtained. (Ibid.) Class Members will have 45 calendar days after the Administrator mails Notice to submit requests for exclusion, written objections to the settlement, and/or challenge the calculation of their workweeks. (Id., §§ A.42, G.4.d, G.5.a, 6.a, 7.a.) Class Members to whom Class Notices are resent after having been returned undeliverable to the Administrator, if any, shall have an additional 14 calendar days beyond the Response Deadline, or 59 calendar days from when the Administrator mails Class Notice to Class Members. (Id., § A.42.)

“Effective on the date when Defendants fund the entire [GSA] and fund all employer payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portion of the Individual Class Payments, Plaintiff, Class Members, and Class Counsel will release claims against all Released Parties as follows:” - Plaintiff is subject to a general release. (SA, § E.1.) - “All Participating Class Members[] release the Released Parties from all claims that were alleged, or could have been alleged, based on the facts contained in the Operative Complaint and that occurred during the Class Period.” (Id., § E.2.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011425: STEVANS vs KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;, et al. 07/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

- “All Participating and Non-Participating Class Members, who are Aggrieved Employees, are deemed to release[] the Released Parties from all claims for PAGA penalties that were alleged, or could have been alleged, based on the facts stated in the Operative Complaint and PAGA Notice and that occurred during the PAGA Period.” (Id., § E.3.)

Plaintiff’s moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was reached after sufficient investigation and arms’ length negotiations. After initiating this lawsuit, the Parties engaged in formal discovery requests, as well as in an informal exchange of information and attended mediation. (Han Decl., ¶ 15.) Before attending mediation, Defendant provided documents regarding its policies, practices, and procedures for business expense reimbursement, payment of hourly and non-exempt employees for all hours worked, and meal and rest breaks, as well as a sampling of time and pay records. (Id., ¶ 16.)

Class Counsel reviewed the sampling of time and pay records, along with data regarding the size and scope of the Class, including the number of workweeks and pay periods during the Class Period. (Ibid.) On June 16, 2025, the Parties attended mediation with the mediator Steve Serratore that eventually resulted in the settlement of this matter via a mediator’s proposal. (Id., ¶ 10.) During the mediation, the Parties discussed the risks of continued litigation, certification, and merits of the claims versus the benefits of settlement. (Id., ¶ 26.)

Plaintiff estimated Defendant’s exposure as follows:

Claim Maximum Certification Merits Risk Realistic Exposure Risk Exposure Rest Break $2,390,022.53 70% 60% $286,802.70 Premiums Meal Break $2,841,857.72 60% 50% $568,371.54 Premiums Overtime/Minimum $1,880,436.22 50% 50% $470,109.06 Wage: to to Off-the-Clock $2,820,997.10 $705,249.28 Work Regular Rate $7,847.80 30% 50% $2,746.73 Unreimbursed $72,150 30% 70% $15,151.50 Business Expenses Wage Statement $1,396,000 50% 50% $349,000 Penalty Waiting Time $1,751,131.20 50% 50% $437,782.80 Penalty PAGA $34,900 $150,000

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011425: STEVANS vs KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;, et al. 07/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

to $244,300 Total: $10,374,345.47 $2,279,964.33 to to $11,524,306.35 $2,515,104.55

(Han Decl., ¶¶ 36-56.) Counsel adequately describes Plaintiff’s claims, Defendants’ defenses, the exposures summarized above, and the risks of continued litigation. (Id., ¶¶ 18-25, 32-56.)

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Han Decl., ¶¶ 2-6, Exh. 1.) Counsel attests to their belief that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Id., ¶ 62.) 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 the payment PAGA Penalties of $150,000 to be paid from the GSA, 65% of which ($97,500) will be allocated to the LWDA as the LWDA PAGA Payment and 35% of which ($52,500) will be allocated to the Aggrieved Employees as Individual PAGA Payments. (SA, § C.2.d.) An “Aggrieved Employee” means all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of Defendants working within the State of California at any time during the PAGA Period. (Id., ¶ A.4.) The PAGA Period means the period from June 10, 2023, through August 15, 2025. (Id., ¶ A.32.) As discussed above, the Aggrieved Employees’ portion will be distributed on a pro rata basis and the Aggrieved Employees are subject to a separate release. (Id., §§ C.2.d.i., E.3.) The Agreement makes clear that Aggrieved Employees cannot opt out of the PAGA portion of the settlement. (Id., § G.5.e.)

Counsel estimated Defendants’ PAGA penalties exposure to be $34,900 (based on 349 employees and $100 penalty) to $244,300 (based on 349 employees, a $100 penalty for initial violation, and 7 theories of recovery). (Han Decl., ¶ 45.) However, that higher estimate assumes that stacking penalties is permissible. (Ibid.) Counsel also recognized the risk that the Court would substantially reduce any penalties awarded. (Id., ¶¶ 46-47.) The PAGA allocation represents 61.40% of Defendants’ 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.

Proposed Class Notice

The notice to Class Members must fairly apprise the prospective members of the terms of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011425: STEVANS vs KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;, et al. 07/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

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: - 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. (Notice, p. 8.) - 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 modifications, the Notice is approved.

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

The Agreement provides for a Class Counsel fees payment of up to $700,000 (35% of the GSA) and a Class Counsel litigation expenses payment of up to $35,000. (SA, § C.2.a.)

Plaintiff fails to offer any analysis in support of the requested award. Counsel is admonished for failing to provide analysis whatsoever at the preliminary approval stage.

Moreover, the Court notes that the attorney fee award sought is higher than the average recognized by some authorities or typically awarded by this Court. (See Newberg, supra, § 15:83 [noting average hovers around 25%]; Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 558 & fn. 13; Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 66 n.11 [noting average around onethird of recovery].)

Nonetheless, 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011425: STEVANS vs KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;, et al. 07/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

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 Parties have selected ILYM Group, Inc. (“ILYM”) as Settlement Administrator. (SA, § G.1.) The Agreement provides for the payment of administration expenses payment of up to $15,000, except for a showing of good cause and as approved by the Court. (Id., § C.2.c.) ILYM confirms that its anticipated fees are $10,000. (Mullins Decl., ¶¶ 9-10, Exh. C.)

ILYM 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 $10,000 to Plaintiff. (SA, § C.2.c.) Plaintiff describes his efforts and estimates that he spent over 40 hours prosecuting this case. (Stevens Decl., ¶¶ 4-9.)

Plaintiff’s requested service payment is preliminarily approved.

Compliance Hearing

The Court sets a Compliance Hearing for August 14, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. No later than August 7, 2026, Plaintiff shall file a revised Notice and redline copy for the Court’s review.

Plaintiff shall separately file a revised Proposed Order that (1) corrects the Department references throughout, (2) references and attaches the revised Notice,[2] and (3) adds the final approval hearing set below.

If Plaintiff adequately addresses the Court’s concerns, the Court will sign the revised Proposed Order, 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011425: STEVANS vs KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;, et al. 07/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

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 later of the following dates: (a) if no objection to the

settlement is made, then no later than sixty (60) calendar days after entry of the order granting final approval; (b) if an objection is made but no appeal filed, then no later than sixty (60) calendar days after the running of the appeal period; or (c) if an appeal is filed, then no later than sixty (60) calendar days after the final judgment becomes final and is no longer subject to appeal.” (SA, § A.18.) [2] It is not necessary to attach the entire Agreement to the revised Proposed Order.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8B 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 will need to 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. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011425: STEVANS vs KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;, et al. 07/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

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/j/16184738886 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 https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/divisions/civil/complex-civil-cases. 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.