DEAL, et al. vs SANTA FE AGGREGATES, INC.

The Parties entered into a written settlement agreement and now move for preliminary approval of the class and representative settlement. This ruling incorporates by reference the definitions in the Agreement and all capitalized terms defined therein shall have the same meaning in this ruling as set forth in the Agreement. (Id. at ¶ 7, Exh. 1 (“Agreement”).)

Settlement Class Certification

Plaintiffs move to certify the following Class: all persons employed by Defendant from June 17, 2021, through January 14, 2026. (Agreement, ¶¶ 1.4, 1.11.) There are approximately 46 Class Members. (Markham Decl., ¶ 20.) The Parties stipulated to certification for settlement purposes. (Agreement, ¶ 12.1.) The Court finds, based on the moving papers, that Plaintiffs have established the requisites for class certification. Accordingly, the Court preliminarily certifies the proposed Class for settlement purposes only.

Aggrieved Employees

An aggrieved employee, or pursuant to the Agreement, a “PAGA Employee,” is defined to mean, “a person employed by SFA in California as an Operator or QA Tech and classified as someone who worked for SFA during the PAGA Period.” (Agreement, ¶ 1.29.) The PAGA Period is defined to mean June 17, 2024, to January 14, 2026. (Id. at ¶ 1.31.) PAGA Employees will receive an Individual PAGA Payment regardless of whether they opt out of the settlement’s class component. (Agreement, Exh. B (“Class Notice”) at p. 2.) Plaintiffs’ counsel gave notice of the settlement to the LWDA. (Markham Decl., ¶ 38, Exh. 2.)

Class Representatives

Plaintiffs are preliminarily appointed as Class Representatives for settlement purposes only.

Plaintiffs provide supporting declarations detailing their work on this case, along with estimates of the amount of time they’ve spent. (Deal Decl., ¶¶ 6-10 [estimating that Deal has spent approximately 70-80 hours, to date]; Perez Decl., ¶¶ 6-10 [estimating that Perez has spent approximately 80-90 hours, to date].)

Class Counsel

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV004719: DEAL, et al. vs SANTA FE AGGREGATES, INC. 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

The Court preliminarily appoints David Markham and Lisa Brevard of The Markham Law Firm, and Walter Haines of United Employees Law Group as Class Counsel for settlement purposes only.

Settlement Administrator

The Court approves Simpluris, Inc. as Settlement Administrator.

Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable Settlement

The Court must find a settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable” before approving a class action settlement. (Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244- 245.) The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair, adequate, and reasonable. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) In making its fairness determination, the Court considers the strength of the Plaintiff’s case, the risk, expenses, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the state of the proceedings, and the experience and views of counsel. (Id. at p. 1801.)

In approving a class action settlement, the Court must “satisfy itself that the class settlement is within the ‘ballpark’ of reasonableness.” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 133.)

This is a non-reversionary, opt out settlement. Defendant will pay a Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $475,000. (Agreement, ¶¶ 1.21, 3.1.) Defendant will separately pay the employer portion of payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portions of the Individual Class Payments. (Id. at ¶ 3.1) The following will be paid out of the GSA: (1) a service payment to Plaintiffs of not more than $15,000, each ($30,000 total); (2) attorneys’ fees award equaling not more than 33.33% of the GSA (estimated to be $158,333.33) and litigation expenses payment not to exceed $15,000 to Class Counsel; (3) settlement administration costs not to exceed $7,429, absent good cause; (4) Individual Class Member payments; and (5) a PAGA Penalty of $47,500 – 65% of which ($30,875) will be paid to the LWDA and 35% of which ($16,625) will be allocated to the Individual PAGA Payments. (Agreement, ¶¶ 1.21, 1.22, 1.23, 1.26, 1.34, 3.1, 3.2.)

For tax purposes, Class Member’s Individual Class Payments will be treated as 30% wages and 70% penalties and interest. (Agreement, ¶ 3.2.4.1.) PAGA payments will be treated as penalties. (Notice, p. 5.) Class Members have 60 days to respond to the Class Notice, plus an additional 14 calendar days for Class Members whose Class Notice was re-mailed. (Id. at ¶¶ 1.43, 7.7.2.) For any Class Member whose Individual

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV004719: DEAL, et al. vs SANTA FE AGGREGATES, INC. 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

Class Payment check or Individual PAGA Payment check is uncashed and cancelled after the Void Date, the Administrator will transmit the funds to the California State Controller's Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Class Member. (Id. at ¶ 4.4.3.)

Enhancement

The Court notes that while it preliminarily approves Plaintiffs’ requested Service Payments of $15,000, each ($30,000 total), in these circumstances the Court will typically not award more than $10,000, each ($20,000 total), at the time of final approval.

Escalator Clause

The Agreement has the following Escalator Clause:

8. CLASS SIZE ESTIMATES and ESCALATOR CLAUSE. Based on its records, SFA estimates that, as of October 8, 2025, there are approximately 6,270 workweeks worked by the Settlement Class Members in the Class Period. If the actual number of Class Member workweeks worked by Class Members in the Class Period exceeds this amount by more than 10%- that is, if there are 6,898 or more class member workweeks - then, Defendant shall have the option in its sole discretion to either: (a) increase the Gross Settlement Amount proportionately for each additional workweek worked by Class Members over 6,897 workweeks; or (b) agree that the Class Period and the PAGA Period shall cut off as of the date the number of workweeks worked by Class Members is up to 6,897. (Agreement, ¶ 8.)

Disposition

The Court preliminarily finds that all relevant factors support settlement approval. (Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.) The papers demonstrate the settlement was reached after arms-length bargaining between the parties and was reached after sufficient discovery and negotiations, which allowed the Parties, and therefore, this Court, to act intelligently with respect to the settlement.

Class Counsel conducted an investigation into the facts and law and issues in this case, including the exchange of informal discovery and the review of relevant information. The settlement appears to be within the “ballpark of reasonableness.” (Markham Decl., ¶¶ 3- 19.) Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV004719: DEAL, et al. vs SANTA FE AGGREGATES, INC. 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

Again, the Court notes, while it preliminarily approves the Plaintiffs’ requested Service Payments of $15,000, each ($30,000 total), the Court will typically not award more than $10,000, each ($20,000 total), at the time of final approval.

The Court also approves the proposed Class Notice subject to the Parties amending the Notice as indicated at the beginning of this ruling. The Notice shall be disseminated as provided in the Agreement.

The Final Approval Hearing will take place on January 8, 2027, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 8A.

The Court VACATES the Case Management Conference scheduled for October 16, 2026, at 10:30 a.m., in this Department.

The Court will sign the Proposed Order submitted with the moving papers. The Court will amend the information in Paragraphs 10 and 14, regarding the Final Approval Hearing.

Plaintiffs must include any request for attorneys’ fees, costs, and the service award in the final approval motion, not a separately filed motion.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8A at (916) 874- 5754 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.)

If oral argument is requested, the parties may appear by Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom link – https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16108301121 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 / ID: 16108301121

Counsel for Plaintiffs is directed to notice all parties of this order.

On the Court's own motion, the Case Management Conference scheduled for 10/16/2026 is vacated.

Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement is scheduled for 01/08/2027 at 09:00 AM in Department 8A at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV004719: DEAL, et al. vs SANTA FE AGGREGATES, INC. 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A