GONZALEZ vs PACIFIC POWDER COATING, INC.

25CV030852: GONZALEZ vs PACIFIC POWDER COATING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action & PAGA Settlement in Department 8B

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Olga Gonzalez’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for preliminary approval of the Parties’ class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action settlement is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED, subject to the Parties’ clarification regarding the scope of the Class release. Accordingly, the Parties’ APPEARANCE IS REQUIRED.

Moving counsel’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise them of Local Rule 1.06, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing.

Status Conference (Compliance Hearing) is scheduled for 08/28/2026 at 10:30 AM in Department 8B at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.

Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement is scheduled for 01/15/2027 at 9:00 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 approval of a class 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 December 19, 2025, Plaintiff commenced this Action by filing a complaint alleging wageand-hour claims against Defendant Pacific Powder Coating, Inc. (“Defendant”). (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 16.) On February 24, 2026, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) failure to pay all minimum wages; (2) failure to pay all overtime wages; (3) meal-period violations; (4) rest-period violations; (5) failure to pay all sicktime wages; (6) wage-statement violations; (7) unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; and (8) civil penalties under PAGA. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff provided notice of the alleged Labor Code violations to Defendant and the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) pursuant to Labor Code section 2699.3. (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 16.) However, Plaintiff fails to provide a copy. Plaintiff must do so now.

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

25CV030852: GONZALEZ vs PACIFIC POWDER COATING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action & PAGA Settlement in Department 8B

Agreement (“Agreement”). (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. A (“SA”).)[1] Plaintiff submitted the Agreement to the LWDA. (Id., ¶ 10, Exh. B.)

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. 2026) § 13:10.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030852: GONZALEZ vs PACIFIC POWDER COATING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action & PAGA Settlement 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 individuals who are or were employed by Defendant as nonexempt hourly employees in California during the Class Period.” (SA, § 1.4.) The Class Period means “the period from December 19, 2021 to March 19, 2026.” (Id., § 1.11.)

Plaintiff argues that provisional certification is appropriate because (1) the class of approximately 226 non-exempt employees is readily ascertainable from Defendant’s payroll records and sufficiently numerous; (2) common issues of law and fact predominate because Plaintiff alleges that Class Members were subject to common wage-and-hour policies and practices; (3) Plaintiff’s claims are typical because they arise from the same alleged wage-andhour policies and practices; (4) Plaintiff is an adequate representative because Plaintiff has no conflicts of interests and retained experienced Counsel; and (5) a class resolution is superior to individual litigation. (Mot., pp. 11:1-12:9.) 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, § 1.12.) Mehrdad Bokhour of Bokhour Law Group, P.C. and Joshua S. Falakassa of Falakassa Law, P.C. are preliminarily appointed as Class Counsel. (Id., § 1.5.)

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030852: GONZALEZ vs PACIFIC POWDER COATING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action & PAGA Settlement in Department 8B

of class members to the proposed settlement.” (Ibid.) “[A] presumption of fairness exists where: (1) the settlement is reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small.” (Id., at p. 1802.)

Under the terms of the Agreement, Defendant denies liability but agrees to pay a Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $218,000 to resolve Plaintiff’s claims. (SA, §§ 1.21, 3.1, 12.1.) Defendant will separately pay any and all employer-side payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portions of the Individual Class Payments. (Id., § 3.1.) The Administrator will disburse the entire GSA without asking or requiring Participating Class Members or PAGA Members to submit any claim as a condition of payment. (Ibid.) None of the GSA will revert to Defendant. (Ibid.) Defendant shall fund the GSA within 15 days of final approval. (Id., § 4.3.)

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA: - A Class Representative Service Payment to the Plaintiff of not more than $10,000. (SA, § 3.2.1.) - A Class Counsel Fees Payment of not more than $72,666.67 (representing 33.33% of the GSA), and a Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment of not more than $20,000. (Id., § 3.2.2.) - An Administrator Expenses Payment not to exceed $10,000, 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, with 65% ($6,500) allocated to the LWDA and 35% ($3,500) allocated to the PAGA Members as Individual PAGA Payments. (Id., § 3.2.6.)

The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) – is approximately $95,333.33 and will be distributed to the Participating Class Members on a pro rata basis as Individual Class Payments. (SA, §§ 1.22, 1.27.) 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. (Id., § 3.2.4.) Similarly, the PAGA Members’ portion of the PAGA penalties will be distributed on a pro rata basis as Individual PAGA Payments. (Id., § 1.23.)

The Administrator will calculate each Individual PAGA Payment by (a) dividing the amount of the PAGA Member’s 35% share of PAGA Penalties ($3,500) by the total number of PAGA Period Pay Periods worked by all PAGA Members during the PAGA Period and (b) multiplying the result by each PAGA Member’s PAGA Period Pay Periods. (Id., § 3.2.6.1.) For tax purposes, 20% of each Participating Class Member’s Individual Class Payment will be allocated to the settlement of wage claims and will be reported on IRS W-2 Forms; and the remaining 80% will be allocated to settlement of claims for all interest and penalties and will be reported on IRS 1099 Forms. (Id., § 3.2.4.1.)

The Administrator will report the Individual PAGA Payments on IRS 1099 Forms. (Id.,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030852: GONZALEZ vs PACIFIC POWDER COATING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action & PAGA Settlement in Department 8B

§ 3.2.6.2.)

Within 10 days after Defendant funds the GSA, the Administrator will mail checks disbursing 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 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 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. (Id., § 4.4.1.) The Administrator will cancel all checks not cashed by the void date. (Ibid.) 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.)

No later than 7 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 15 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. (Id., § 7.4.2.) Not later than 5 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 45 days after the Administrator mails the Notice to request exclusion from the settlement, submit written objections, and/or challenge the calculation of workweeks and/or pay periods attributed to them. (Id., §§ 1.43, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6, 7.7.2.)[2] The deadlines for Class Members’ written objections, challenges to workweeks and/or pay periods, and requests for exclusion will be extended an additional 14 days beyond the 45 days otherwise provided in the Class Notice for all Class Members whose notice is re-mailed. (Id., §§ 1.43, 7.4.4.)

The Administrator will inform the Class Member of the extended deadline by re-mailing the Class Notice. (Id., § 7.4.4.)

Release

“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 Class Counsel will release claims against all Released Parties as follows:”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030852: GONZALEZ vs PACIFIC POWDER COATING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action & PAGA Settlement in Department 8B

- Plaintiff is subject to a general release. (SA, §§ 5, 5.1, 5.3.[3]) - “In consideration for their awarded Individual Class Payments, as of the date the Settlement becomes Final, all Participating Class Members release[] any and all claims against Defendant and the Released Parties that arise out of or reasonably relate to the claims, rights, demands, liabilities, and causes of action, whether known or unknown, arising from the same set of operative facts as those alleged in the Complaint, the Operative Complaint, and/or the applicable LWDA letters, including those claims which could have been asserted based on the facts alleged in the Complaint, the Operative Complaint, and/or LWDA letters, through the date the Class Representative signs this agreement. Such released claims include claims for failure to pay overtime, failure to calculate any wages based on the regular rate of pay (including sick time or any other time off that must be paid based on the regular rate of pay), for meal period violations, for rest period violations, for wages statement violations, for failure to timely pay all final wages, for expenses, statutory penalties, civil penalties, or other relief under the California Labor Code, relief from unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; attorneys’ fees and costs; and.” (SA, §§ 5, 5.2[4] [emphasis added].) - “In consideration for their awarded Individual PAGA Payments, as of the date the Settlement becomes Final, all PAGA Members will release[] any and all claims for civil penalties under PAGA against Defendant and the Released Parties that arise out of or reasonably relate to the claims alleged in the Complaint, the Operative Complaint, and/or the applicable LWDA letters, including those claims which could have been asserted based on the facts alleged in the Complaint, the Operative Complaint, and/or LWDA letters.” (Id., §§ 5, 5.3.)

The Court is concerned by the inclusion of the claims “whether known or unknown” in the Class Release. The Court does not understand the necessity or propriety of including language that is comparable to a general release and a section 1542 waiver as to absent Class Members. In the Court’s experience, a comprehensive description of released claims as those alleged in the complaint(s) and those claims that reasonably could have been alleged based on the factual allegations in the complaint(s) generally provides an adequate level of protection against future claims. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to conclude that this language should be removed. The Parties shall be prepared to address this language and whether they agree to its removal.[5] While the Class Release is otherwise verbose and could be simplified, the Court will not recommend further revisions.

Exposure Analysis

Plaintiff’s moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was reached after sufficient investigation and arms-length negotiations. Before entering into the Settlement, Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030852: GONZALEZ vs PACIFIC POWDER COATING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action & PAGA Settlement in Department 8B

conducted a thorough investigation and informal discovery, including Plaintiff’s personnel, payroll, and timekeeping records; Defendant’s relevant employment policies and practices; and information concerning the size of the proposed Settlement Class, total Workweeks, and PAGA Pay Periods. (Bokhour Decl., ¶¶ 17, 18.) Class Counsel analyzed this information to evaluate the potential damages associated with Plaintiff’s claims, the strengths and weaknesses of the Action, Defendant’s anticipated defenses, and the risks of continued litigation. (Id., ¶ 17)

Plaintiff estimated Defendant’s exposure as follows:

Claim Maximum Exposure Discount Realistic Exposure Unpaid Wages De minimis 100% $0 Waiting-Time Penalties $442,800 50% $221,400 Meal Period Violations $230,625 75% $57,656 Rest Period Violations $384,375 75% $96,093 Wage Statement Violations $236,750 80% $47,350 PAGA Penalties $473,500 -- $10,000 Total: $1,768,050 $432,499

(Bokhour Decl., ¶¶ 23-37.) Plaintiff discounted the unpaid wages claim in light of the relatively de minimis amount of uncompensated time allegedly incurred by each employee. (Id., ¶ 23.) Counsel adequately describes Plaintiff’s claims, Defendant’s defenses, the risks of continued litigation, and the exposures summarized above. (Id., ¶¶ 11, 16-38.) The GSA represents approximately 12.33% of Defendant’s maximum exposure and 102.38% of Defendant’s realistic exposure.

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Bokhour Decl. ¶¶ 3-7; Falakassa Decl. ¶¶ 4-8.) Counsel attests to their belief that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Bokhour Decl., ¶¶ 13, 50; Falakassa Decl., ¶¶ 15, 21, 23, 33.) 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 of PAGA Penalties in the amount of $10,000, with 65% ($6,500) allocated to the LWDA and 35% ($3,500) allocated to the PAGA Members as Individual PAGA Payments. (SA, § 3.2.6.) A PAGA Member means “any non-exempt hourly employee who works or worked for Defendant in California at any time during the PAGA Period.” (Id., § 1.29.) The PAGA Period means the period from December 19, 2024 to March 19, 2026. (Id., § 1.31.) As described above, the PAGA Members’ portion will be distributed on a pro rata basis, and the PAGA Members are subject to a separate release. (Id., §§ 1.23, 3.2.6.1, 5.3.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030852: GONZALEZ vs PACIFIC POWDER COATING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action & PAGA Settlement in Department 8B

The Agreement makes clear that the PAGA Members cannot opt out of the PAGA portion of the settlement. (Id., §§ 5.3, 7.5.4.)

Plaintiff estimated Defendant’s maximum PAGA exposure to be $473,500, based on approximately 4,735 pay periods and assuming a default penalty of $100 per pay period. (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 34.) However, Counsel acknowledged that the Labor Code grants the Court broad discretion to reduce civil penalties, which along with recent amendments, created significant uncertainty regarding the amount of recoverable penalties. (Id., ¶ 35.) In light of the risks, the Parties agreed to allocate $10,000 to the resolution of PAGA claims. (Id., ¶ 36.) The PAGA allocation represents approximately 2.11% 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.

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”).) - The Notice includes the following language: “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 PAGA Members.” (Notice, p. 25.) The Court finds this language is unnecessary and may improperly discourage class members from objecting to the settlement.

Accordingly, it must be removed. - The Notice indicates that “[a]ssuming the Court grants Final Approval, Defendant will fund the Gross Settlement not more than 180 days after the Judgment entered by the Court becomes final.” (Id., p. 25.) This provision is misleading because the Agreement provides that Defendant shall fund the GSA within 15 days of final approval. (SA, § 4.3.) - The Notice should summarize the releases using the language of the Agreement, including any revisions thereto to address the Court’s concerns. (Notice, pp. 27-28.) - 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030852: GONZALEZ vs PACIFIC POWDER COATING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action & PAGA Settlement in Department 8B

information. (Id., p. 30.) - 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 not more than $72,666.67 (representing 33.33% of the GSA), and a Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment of not more than $20,000. (SA, § 3.2.2.) In compliance with California Rules of Professional Conduct section 1.5.1, Plaintiff signed a fee split agreement that provides that fees will be allocated between Class Counsel as follows: 50% to the Bokhour Law Group, P.C., and 50% to the Falakassa Law, P.C. (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 49; Falakassa Decl., ¶ 32.) Plaintiff argues that the requested fee award is fair as a percentage of the common fund. (Mot., pp. 18:24-19:11.)

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 Parties have jointly selected ILYM Group, Inc. (“ILYM”) to serve as the Administrator. (SA, § 7.1.) The Agreement provides for an Administrator Expenses Payment not to exceed $10,000, except for a showing of good cause and as approved by the Court. (Id., § 3.2.3.) ILYM’s expenses will not exceed $5,000 for this settlement. (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 48.)

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030852: GONZALEZ vs PACIFIC POWDER COATING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action & PAGA Settlement in Department 8B

Class Representative Service Payment

The Agreement provides for a Class Representative Service Payment to Plaintiff of not more than $10,000. (SA, § 3.2.1.) Plaintiff describes her efforts, but fails to estimate the time she committed to the prosecution of this action beyond describing it as “significant.” (Gonzalez Decl., ¶¶ 6-9, 13.) 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 28, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. No later than August 21, 2026, Plaintiff shall file (1) a copy of Plaintiff’s LWDA notice; (2) a supplemental declaration estimating the time Plaintiff spent assisting in the prosecution of this matter; and (3) a revised Class Notice and redline copy for the Court’s review.

If the Parties agree to revise the class release to address the Court’s concerns, Plaintiff shall file proof of the Agreement’s amendment and submission of the amended Agreement to the LWDA.

If Plaintiff adequately addresses the Court’s concerns, the Court will sign the Proposed Order submitted with Plaintiff’s moving papers, correcting paragraph 5, and adding the final approval hearing set below; and no appearance will be required.

Final Approval Hearing

The Court will again review and consider the terms of this settlement at the time of the final approval hearing. The Court sets a Final Approval Hearing for January 15, 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 Court notes that the copy of the Agreement provided is not “Approved As to Content” by

Defendant’s Counsel Alexander M. Medina. (SA, p. 21.) The Court assumes this is an oversight. In any event, the Agreement is signed by Defendant and no opposition was filed. [2] The Court notes that sections 7.5.1 and 7.7.2 refer to a 60-day response deadline. (SA, §§

7.5.1, 7.7.2.) While the Court prefers a 60-day deadline, the Court assumes these are typographical errors. Counsel is expected to exercise care and diligence in drafting materials for the Court’s review.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030852: GONZALEZ vs PACIFIC POWDER COATING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action & PAGA Settlement in Department 8B [3] Plaintiff’s Civil Code section 1542 waiver appears at section 5.3 of the Agreement; however,

it appears this section should have been numbered 5.4. (SA, § 5.3 [at p. 10].) [4] This section is entitled “Release by Participating Class Members Who Are Not PAGA

Members.” (SA, § 5.2.) This heading appears to be a drafting error as the section applies to all Participating Class Members, without regard to their status as PAGA Members. In any event, the headings are not part of the Agreement. (Id., § 12.14.) [5] 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, § 12.8.)

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030852: GONZALEZ vs PACIFIC POWDER COATING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action & PAGA Settlement in Department 8B

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.