Jaime Farias vs. Labor Resource Group, Inc

34-2022-00324254-CU-OE-GDS: Jaime Farias vs. Labor Resource Group, Inc 05/23/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 22

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jaime Farias’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for preliminary approval of the Parties’ class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) settlement is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED, as follows.

Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement is scheduled for 10/24/2025 at 9:00 AM in Department 22 at Gordon D. Schaber Superior Court.

The Court has provided specific direction on the information and argument the Court requires to grant a motion for preliminary and final 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 July 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a putative wage-and-hour class action complaint against Defendants Labor Resource Group, Inc. and CEMCO, Inc. (“Defendants”) for: (1) failure to pay minimum and straight time wages (Labor Code §§ 204, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197); (2) failure to pay overtime wages (Labor Code §§ 1194, and 1198); (3) failure to provide meal periods (Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512); (4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods (Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512); (5) failure to timely pay final wages at termination (Labor Code §§ 201-203); (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Labor Code § 226); (7) failure to indemnify employees for expenditures (Labor Code § 2802); and (8) unfair business practices (Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq.). (Horton Decl., ¶ 4.) On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a separate action against Defendants for civil penalties under PAGA. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff sent a notice to Defendants and the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) alleging similar wage and hour violations pursuant to the PAGA on July 26, 2022. (Horton Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff amended his LWDA notice for settlement purposes to include claims for the failure to pay vested vacation wages upon termination and the failure to pay sick leave. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. 2.) Four days later, on June 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint in the class action matter (“Class FAC”) adding causes of action for the failure to pay vested vacation wages upon termination and the failure to pay sick leave. (Ibid.)

On September 13, 2024, following the exhaustions of the 65-day statutory period in the PAGA action, the Parties submitted a stipulation, along with a redlined PAGA FAC and clean copy of the PAGA FAC for the Court’s review and approval. (Ibid.) The Court signed the Order granting Plaintiff leave to file the PAGA FAC on September 18, 2024. (9-18-24 Order.)

On September 13, 2024, following the exhaustion of the 65-day statutory period in the PAGA

34-2022-00324254-CU-OE-GDS: Jaime Farias vs. Labor Resource Group, Inc 05/23/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 22

action, the Parties submitted a stipulation, along with a redlined PAGA FAC and clean copy of the PAGA FAC for the Court’s review and approval. (Horton Decl., ¶ 4.) On January 31, 2025, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation For Leave to File Second Amended Class and Representative Action Complaint, which was granted on February 5, 2025. (Ibid.) On February 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, which added the claim against Defendants for civil penalties under the PAGA and removed any claim against Defendants for failure to pay vested vacation wages upon termination. (Ibid.)

On October 11, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s first motion for preliminary approval without prejudice. (10-11-24 Minute Order.) Plaintiff now moves for preliminary approval of the Parties’ Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement and Class Notice (“Settlement Agreement” or “Agreement”). (Horton Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. 3 (“SA”).) Class Counsel submitted the proposed settlement to the LWDA before filing the instant motion. (Id., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff shall provide proof of this submission in advance of final approval.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324254-CU-OE-GDS: Jaime Farias vs. Labor Resource Group, Inc 05/23/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 22

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. 2024) § 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, 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, non-exempt employees of Defendants who were employed by Defendants within the State of California during the Class Period.” (SA, ¶ 1.5.) The Class Period means the period from July 26, 2018 to October 31, 2023. (Id., ¶ 1.11.)

Plaintiff argues that provisional certification is appropriate because (1) the Class of approximately 588 employees is sufficiently numerous and are easily ascertained from Defendants’ business records; (2) Plaintiff contends that common issues of law and fact as to Defendants’ common business practices predominate over individual issues; (3) Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class because Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants and alleges that he was subject to the same policies and practices as other similarly situated employees; (4) Plaintiff and his Counsel meet the adequacy requirement because Plaintiff has retained experienced Counsel, has diligently prosecuted this action, and has no conflicts with the Class; and (5) a class action is superior to a multiplicity of litigation. (Mot., pp. 16:17-19:24.) 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 appointed as Class Representative. (SA, ¶ 1.12.) Molly Ann DeSario and Arsine

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324254-CU-OE-GDS: Jaime Farias vs. Labor Resource Group, Inc 05/23/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 22

Grigoryan of Wilshire Law Firm, PLC are 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.)

Under the terms of the Agreement, Defendants deny liability, but agree to pay a Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $850,000 to resolve Plaintiff’s claims. (SA, ¶¶ 1.21, 3.1.) Defendants will separately pay any and all employer payroll taxes owed on the wage portions of the Individual Class Payments. (Id., ¶ 3.1.) Participating Class Members and Aggrieved Employees will receive their share of the settlement without asking or requiring them to submit any claim and none of the GSA will revert to Defendants. (Ibid.)

Defendants shall fully fund the GSA in six equal quarterly payments made to the Settlement Administrator. (Id., ¶ 4.3.) The first quarterly payment will be due on February 29, 2024, with each additional payment due at the end of every third month thereafter. (Ibid.) Concurrent with the final payment, Defendants will also pay the amount necessary to pay Defendants’ share of employer payroll taxes. (Ibid.)

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA:  A Class Representative Service Payment to Plaintiff of not more than $10,000 (SA, ¶ 3.2.1);  A Class Counsel Fees Payment of not more than 33 1/3% (estimated to be $283,333.33) and a Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment of not more than $25,000 (id., ¶ 3.2.2);  An Administrator Expenses Payment not to exceed $15,000 (id., ¶ 3.2.3);  A PAGA Penalties payment of $30,000, with 75% allocated to the LWDA ($22,500) and 25% allocated to the Aggrieved Employees ($7,500) (id., ¶ 3.2.5).

The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) – is approximately $486,666.67 and shall be distributed to the Participating Class Members as Individual Class Payments, calculated on a pro-rata basis. (SA, ¶¶ 1.22, 1.27, 3.2.4.) For tax purposes, 20% of each Individual Class Payment will be allocated to the settlement of wage claims and 80% allocated to the settlement of claims for interest and penalties. (Id., ¶ 3.2.4.1.) Similarly, the Aggrieved Employees’ portion of the PAGA Penalties shall be distributed on a pro-rata basis. (Id., ¶¶ 1.23,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324254-CU-OE-GDS: Jaime Farias vs. Labor Resource Group, Inc 05/23/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 22

3.2.5.1.) Aggrieved Employees assume fully responsibility and liability for any taxes owed on their Individual PAGA Payments. (Id., ¶ 3.2.5.1.) Each Settlement Class Member is eligible to receive an estimated average net benefit of approximately $827.66. (Horton Decl., ¶ 29.)

Individual Class and PAGA Payment checks will remain valid for at least 180 days after the date of mailing. (SA, ¶ 4.4.1.) The Administrator will cancel all checks not cashed by the void date and the funds associated with any such checks will be transmitted to Legal Aid At Work, as a cy pres recipient. (Id., ¶¶ 4.4.1, 4.4.3.) Plaintiff’s Counsel attest that they have no interest in the proposed cy pres recipient. (Horton Decl., ¶ 16.) Plaintiff’s declaration does not include a similar attestation; however, the Court is aware that Plaintiff has previously done so. (9-18-24 Farias Decl., ¶ 18.)

Within 15 days after the Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement, Defendants 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 USPS mail, the Notice, with Spanish translation. (Id., ¶ 7.4.2.) Before mailing the Notices, the Administrator shall update Class Member addresses using the National Change of Address database. (Ibid.)

No later than 3 business days after the Administrator’s receipt of any Notice returned as undeliverable, the Administrator shall re-mail the Notice using any forwarding address provided by the USPS. (Id., ¶ 7.4.3.) If no forwarding address is provided, the Administrator shall conduct an address search and re-mail the Notice to the most current address obtained. (Ibid.) Class Members will have 60 days to submit written objections, challenges to workweeks and/or pay periods, and requests for exclusion. (Id., ¶¶ 1.42, 7.5.1, 7.6, 7.7.2.)

The deadline will be extended an additional 14 days beyond the 60 days otherwise provided in the Notice for all Class Members whose notice is re-mailed. (Id., ¶ 7.4.4.)

Effective on the date when Defendants fully fund the GSA and fund all employer payroll taxes owed on the wage portion of the Individual Class Payments, Plaintiff, Class Members, Aggrieved Employees, and Class Counsel will release claims against all Released Parties as follows: - Plaintiff is subject to a general release. (SA, ¶¶ 5, 5.1, 5.1.1.) - “All Participating Class Members [] release Released Parties from all claims that were or could have reasonably been raised in the Action based upon the facts alleged in the Operative Complaint, including claims under Labor Code section 201, 202,203,204,216,218.5, 222,223,226,226.3, 226.7, 245-248.5, 510,512,558, 1174, 1174.5, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2802, California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, sections 3395 and 11000, et seq., California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq, and all class claims, sick pay claims, meal or rest and recovery period claims, meal or rest and recovery period premium claims, unpaid regular, overtime, and/or minimum wage claims, including but

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324254-CU-OE-GDS: Jaime Farias vs. Labor Resource Group, Inc 05/23/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 22

not limited to claims for failing to properly calculate the regular rate of pay for purposes of paying overtime and/or sick pay, meal and rest period premium payments, failing to pay all minimum and overtime wages for hours worked, failure to pay all wages owed upon separation of employment, failure to indemnify employees for all necessary expenditures, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and complete payments of wages at separation or termination, failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements, unfair competition based on the foregoing, unlawful business practices based on the foregoing, fraudulent business practices based on the foregoing, waiting time penalties, interest, fees, costs, and any other claims that could have reasonably been raised based upon the facts alleged in the Operative Complaint (collectively, the ‘Released Claims’).

The Release Period for the claims set forth in this paragraph shall be the Class Period.” (Id., ¶¶ 5, 5.2.) - “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 facts stated in the Operative Complaint and the PAGA Notice. Aggrieved Employees' release applies only to those claims arising during the PAGA Period.” (Id., ¶¶ 5, 5.3.)

Plaintiff’s moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was reached after sufficient investigation and arms-length negotiations. Following the filing of the original complaint, the Parties exchanged formal discovery and participated in an IDC. (Horton Decl., ¶ 5.) Following the IDC, Defendants retained new counsel who were interested in mediation. (Ibid.) In preparation for mediation, the Parties exchanged documents and information. (Ibid.) Defendants produced a sample of time and pay records for class members, and also provided documents of their wage and hour policies and practices during the class period, and information regarding the total number of current and former employees in their informal discovery responses. (Ibid.)

On October 26, 2023, the Parties participated in private mediation with experienced class action mediator, Lisa Klerman, Esq. (Id., ¶ 7.) The settlement negotiations were at arms-length and, although conducted in a professional manner, were adversarial. (Ibid.) After extensive negotiations and discussions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’ defenses, the Parties were able to reach a resolution. (Id., ¶ 8.)

Based on an analysis of the facts and legal contentions in this case, as well as the documents and information provided by Defendants, Counsel estimated Defendants’ maximum exposure as follows:

Claim Maximum Discount Realistic Exposure Exposure Failure to Pay $632,341.08 80% to account for class $126,468.22 Minimum Wages certification and merits risks and Overtime Claim

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324254-CU-OE-GDS: Jaime Farias vs. Labor Resource Group, Inc 05/23/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 22

Meal Period Claim $1,475,473.90 80% to account for the difficulty $295,094.78 of certifying and proving meal period claims Rest Period Claim $1,967,289.05 80% to account for the difficulty $393,457.81 of certifying and proving rest period claims Failure to Reimburse $190,040.00 80% to account for the difficulty $38,008.00 Claim of certifying and proving expense reimbursement claims Failure to Pay Sick $299.51 100% $0 Leave Claim waiting time $3,187,822.50 90% to account for the risk and $318,782.25 penalties uncertainty of prevailing at trial wage statements $530,000.00 90% to account for the risk and $53,000.00 penalties uncertainty of prevailing at trial PAGA $394,800.00 90% to account for the risk and $39,480.00 uncertainty of prevailing at trial

Total: $8,378,066.04 $1,264,291.06

(Horton Decl., ¶¶ 18-25.) Counsel sufficiently describes the underlying assumptions and methodologies used to calculate these estimates, as well as the discounts applied for settlement purposes, with the exception of Plaintiffs’ failure to pay sick leave claim. (Ibid.) Based on the $853,323.81 total realistic exposure on the non-penalty claims reported in Paragraph 24 of Counsel’s declaration, it appears that Counsel discounted the claim to $295. (Id., ¶ 24.) However, elsewhere, it appears that Counsel entirely discounted this claim, resulting in a realistic exposure on the non-penalty claims of $853,028.81. (Id., ¶ 25.) Counsel is expected to exercise care and diligence in preparing materials for the Court’s review. The GSA represents approximately 10% of Defendants’ maximum exposure and 67% of Defendants’ realistic exposure. (Id., ¶ 26.)

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Horton Decl., ¶¶ 42-49.) Counsel attests to their belief that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Id., ¶¶ 17, 30.) Based on the foregoing, the Court preliminarily finds, subject to the final fairness hearing, that the Settlement is within the ballpark of reasonableness and is entitled to a presumption of fairness and that all relevant factors support preliminary approval.

PAGA Payment

The Agreement provides for a PAGA penalties payment in the amount of $30,000 to be paid from the GSA, with 75% ($22,500) allocated to the LWDA and 25% ($7,500.00) allocated to the Aggrieved Employees as their Individual PAGA Payments. (SA, ¶ 3.2.5.) The Aggrieved

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324254-CU-OE-GDS: Jaime Farias vs. Labor Resource Group, Inc 05/23/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 22

Employees are all persons employed by Defendants in California and classified as an hourly-paid or non-exempt employee who worked for Defendants during the PAGA Period. (Id., ¶ 1.4.) The PAGA Period means the period from September 29, 2021 to October 31, 2023. (Id., ¶ 1.30.) 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.)

As summarized above, Counsel estimated Defendants’ maximum PAGA exposure to be $349,800, based on the Court assessing a $100 penalty for initial violations for all 3,948 pay periods within the 1-year statute of limitations. (Horton Decl., ¶ 25.) However, Counsel applied a 90% discount because it was unrealistic to expect the Court to award the full amount given Defendants’ defenses, the contested nature of Plaintiff’s claims, and the discretionary nature of the penalties. (Ibid.) Counsel also recognized that the maximum penalties are substantially higher than the realistic recovery on the underlying non-penalty claims and that such a disproportionate award raises due process concerns. (Ibid.)

Counsel estimated Defendants’ realistic PAGA exposure to be $39,480. The Agreement’s PAGA allocation represents approximately 8.58% of Defendants’ maximum exposure and 85.76% of Defendants’ realistic exposure. The Court finds the PAGA allocation reasonable under the circumstances 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 Class Notice fairly describes the settlement and is approved. (SA, Exh. 1.)

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

The Agreement provides for a Class Counsel Fees Payment of not more than 33 1/3% (estimated to be $283,333.33) and a Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment of not more than $25,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.2.) Plaintiff argues that the requested fees payment is reasonable as a percentage of the common fund and in line with typical cases; appropriate because this matter involves a feeshifting provision; and supported by the experience, reputation, and ability of Class Counsel. (Mot., pp. 12:15-15:3.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324254-CU-OE-GDS: Jaime Farias vs. Labor Resource Group, Inc 05/23/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 22

The requested fee 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 CPT Group, Inc. (“CPT”) as settlement administrator and provides for an administrator expenses payment not to exceed $15,000. (SA, ¶¶ 3.2.3, 7.1.)

CPT 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 to Plaintiff of not more than $10,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.) Plaintiff describes his efforts and estimates that he spent approximately 45 hours prosecuting this case. (Farias Decl., ¶¶6-9.)

Plaintiff’s service payment is preliminarily approved.

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 October 24, 2025 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 Dept22@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.

The Court will sign the Proposed Order submitted with Plaintiff’s moving papers.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324254-CU-OE-GDS: Jaime Farias vs. Labor Resource Group, Inc 05/23/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 22

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 22 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 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.

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/my/sscdept22 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/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.