TANNER, et al. vs ROYAL TRUCK BODY LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

24CV011304: TANNER, et al. vs ROYAL TRUCK BODY LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Isaac Tanner’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for preliminary approval of the Parties’ class action and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) settlement is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED, subject to the Parties’ clarification regarding the Class and PAGA release and Plaintiff providing the materials requested below. 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 08/21/2026 at 10:30 AM in Department 8B at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.

Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement is scheduled for 02/05/2027 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.

Moving Counsel’s declaration fails to attest that they have reviewed the Court’s checklist and their briefing complies with the checklist, as required by Local Rule 2.99.05. The Court, in its discretion, has nonetheless considered Plaintiff’s motion. Counsel is admonished that any future failure to include the attestation in counsel’s declaration may result in the denial of the motion without prejudice. (Local Rule 2.99.05(C).) Failure to comply with the checklist may lead to an order to show cause regarding sanctions and/or a reduction in the requested attorneys’ fee award. (Id., 2.99.05(D).)

Background

On or around June 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and served on defendant Royal Truck Body LLC (“Defendant”), a notice under Labor Code section 2699.3, stating Plaintiff intended to serve as a proxy of the LWDA to recover civil penalties on behalf of Aggrieved Employees for alleged Labor Code violations. (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 2.) On the same day, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a class

24CV011304: TANNER, et al. vs ROYAL TRUCK BODY LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

action against Defendant. (Complaint.) On October 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging the following cases of action: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) waiting time penalties; (6) wage statement violations; (7) failure to timely pay wages; (8) failure to indemnify; (9) violation of Labor Code section 227.3; and (10) unfair competition. (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 4.)

On or about January 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a separate representative action under PAGA, captioned Isaac Tanner v. Royal Truck Body LLC, in the Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 25CV001505, seeking PAGA civil penalties against Defendant for the Labor Code violations alleged in the PAGA Notice (the “PAGA Action”). (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 5.)

On or around May 6, 2025, the Parties participated in an all-day mediation presided over by Lynn Frank, Esquire. (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 9.) The mediation was successful, and the Parties agreed to globally resolve all class and PAGA claims in the Action. (Ibid.) As part of the settlement, the Parties agreed to stipulate to Plaintiff’s filing a Second Amended Complaint in the Class Action, adding all allegations in the PAGA Action, and after acceptance of the Second Amended Complaint, request for dismissal without prejudice of the PAGA Action, thereby effectively consolidating the allegations in the two actions for purposes of the Settlement. (Ibid.) The Parties have not filed the stipulation to amend. They must do so now.

Plaintiff now seeks preliminary approval of the Parties’ Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement and Class Notice (“Agreement”). (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 12, Exh. 1 (“SA”).) Plaintiff submitted a copy of the settlement to the LWDA. (Id., ¶ 15, Exh. 3.)

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011304: TANNER, et al. vs ROYAL TRUCK BODY LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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.)

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 nonexempt employees that worked for Defendant in California during the Class Period.” (SA, ¶ 1.5.) The Class Period means the period from June 7, 2020 through and including July 6, 2025. (Id., ¶ 1.12.)

Plaintiff argues that provisional certification is appropriate because (1) the class is readily ascertainable from Defendant’s payroll records; (2) the class of at least 362 Class Members is sufficiently numerous; (3) common issues of law and fact predominate because Plaintiff alleges

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011304: TANNER, et al. vs ROYAL TRUCK BODY LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

common issues arising from Defendant’s wage and hour policies and procedures; (4) Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class because Plaintiff is a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee like other Class Members and complains of the same wage and hour violations suffered by the class; (5) Plaintiff is an adequate representative because no disabling conflict of interest exists between Plaintiff and the class and Plaintiff retained experienced Counsel; and (6) a class action is superior to individual litigation. (Mot., pp. 19:12-22:3.) 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, ¶ 1.13.) David Bibiyan and Vedang J. Patel of Bibiyan Law Group, P.C. (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, Defendant denies liability, but agrees to pay a Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $770,000 to resolve Plaintiff’s claims. (SA, ¶¶ 1.22, 3.1, 12.1.) Defendant will separately pay any and all employer 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 Aggrieved Employees to submit any claim as a condition of payment. (Ibid.) None of the GSA will revert to Defendant. (Ibid.) Within 60 days of the Effective Date,[1] Defendant shall fund the GSA and the employer-side payroll taxes. (Id., ¶ 4.2.)

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA: - A Class Representative service payment of not more than $10,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.) - A Class Counsel fees payment of not more than 35% of the GSA, which is currently estimated to be $269,500, and a Class Counsel litigation expenses payment of not more

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011304: TANNER, et al. vs ROYAL TRUCK BODY LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

than $30,000. (Id., ¶ 3.2.2.) - An Administrator expenses payment not to exceed $9,250, except for a showing of good cause and as approved by the Court. (Id., ¶ 3.2.3.) - PAGA Penalties in the amount of $50,000, with 75% ($37,500) allocated to the LWDA PAGA Payment and 25% ($12,500) allocated to the Aggrieved Employees as Individual PAGA Payments. (Id., ¶ 3.2.5.)

The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) – is approximately $401,150 and will be distributed on a pro rata basis as Individual Class Payments. (SA, ¶¶ 1.23, 1.28.) An Individual Class Payment 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 Aggrieved Employees’ portion will be distributed on a pro rata basis as Individual PAGA Payments. (Id., ¶ 1.24.)

The Administrator will calculate each Individual PAGA Payment by (a) dividing the amount of the Aggrieved Employees’ 25% share of PAGA Penalties $12,500 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. (Id., ¶ 3.2.5.1.) For tax purposes, 20% of each Participating Class Member’s Individual Class Payment will be allocated to the settlement of wage claims and reported on an IRS W-2 Form. (Id., ¶ 3.2.4.1.)

The remaining 80% will be allocated to settlement of claims for interest and penalties and reported on IRS 1099 Forms. (Ibid.) The Administrator will report the Individual PAGA Payments on IRS 1099 Forms. (Id., ¶ 3.2.5.2.)

Within 14 days after Defendant funds the GSA, the Administrator will mail checks distributing the settlement. (SA, ¶ 4.3.) The Administrator will issue checks for the Individual Class Payments and/or Individual PAGA Payments and send them to the Class Members and/or Aggrieved Employees via First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid. (Id., ¶ 4.3.1.) Before mailing any checks, the Settlement Administrator must update addresses using the National Change of Address Database. (Ibid.) The Administrator must conduct a Class Member Address Search for all other Class Members whose checks are returned undelivered without USPS forwarding address. (Id., ¶ 4.3.2.)

Within 7 days of receiving a returned check the Administrator must remail checks to the USPS forwarding address provided or to an address ascertained through the Class Member Address Search. (Ibid.) 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., ¶ 4.3.1.) 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., ¶ 4.3.3.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011304: TANNER, et al. vs ROYAL TRUCK BODY LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Not later than 30 days after Defense Counsel’s receipt of the Court’s Order granting Preliminary Approval of the settlement, Defendant will deliver the Class Data to the Administrator. (SA, ¶ 4.1.) 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 Class Notice. (Id., ¶ 7.4.2.) Before mailing the Notices, the Administrator shall update Class Member addresses using the National Change of Address database. (Ibid.)

Not later than 3 business days after the Administrator’s receipt of any Notice returned by the USPS as undelivered, the Administrator shall re-mail the 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 remail the Notice to the most current address obtained. (Ibid.) Class Members shall have 60 days after the Administrator mails the Notice to Class Members and Aggrieved Employees (the “Response Deadline”) to request exclusion, challenge the calculation of their workweeks and/or PAGA pay periods, and/or submit written objections. (Id., ¶¶ 1.43, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6, 7.7.2.)

The Response 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., ¶¶ 1.43, 7.4.4.)

“Effective on the date when Defendant fully funds the entire GSA and funds all employer payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portions of the Individual Class Payments, Plaintiff, Class Members, Aggrieved Employees, the LWDA, and Class Counsel will release claims against all Released Parties as follows:” - Plaintiff is subject to a general release. (SA, ¶¶ 5, 5.1.) - “All Participating Class Members release the Released Parties of and from all claims that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, in the Operative Complaint that arose during the Class Period including without limitation with respect to the following claims: (1) failure to pay overtime wages, including failure to pay additional remuneration when calculating overtime wages; (2) failure to provide compliant meal periods or pay meal period premiums in lieu thereof; (3) failure to authorize and permit compliant rest periods or pay rest period premiums in lieu thereof; (4) failure to pay minimum and straight time wages; (5) failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at the time of separation of employment; (6) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (7) failure to keep requisite payroll records; (8) failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses and costs; (9) failure to pay all accrued and vested vacation; (10) all claims under California Business & Professions Code § 17200 for unfair business practices and parallel claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act that could have been premised on the facts, claims, causes of action or legal theories described above; and (11) violation of the California Industrial Wage Orders that could have been premised on the facts, claims, causes of action or legal theories described above, as well as any potential penalties, interest or attorneys’ fees associated with all such causes of action under California law. Except as set forth in Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.3

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011304: TANNER, et al. vs ROYAL TRUCK BODY LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

of this Agreement, Participating Class Members do not release claims, including claims for vested benefits, wrongful termination, violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, unemployment insurance, disability, social security, workers’ compensation, or claims based on facts occurring outside the Class Period.” (Id., ¶¶ 5, 5.2 [emphasis added].) - “The LWDA and the Aggrieved Employees, including Non-Participating Class Members, release the Released Parties of and from all claims, demands, rights, liabilities, and causes of action for any civil penalties recoverable under the California Labor Code, including PAGA, that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, based on the claims asserted in the Operative Complaint, PAGA Complaint, and the PAGA Notice (and any amendments thereto) and ascertained in the course of the Actions, arising during or with respect to the PAGA Period.” (Id., ¶¶ 5, 5.3 [emphasis added].)

Generally, in cases involving both class and PAGA claims, the settlement should include separate releases for the Class Members and the Aggrieved Employees. The class release must be fairly tailored to the claims that were or reasonably could be asserted in the lawsuit based on the facts alleged in the complaint. (See Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 538-539 [“Releases must be appropriately tethered to the complaint’s factual allegations;” “[A] court cannot release claims that are outside the scope of the allegations of the complaint.”].) The PAGA release must be tethered to the PAGA claims that were or reasonably could have been alleged based on the facts alleged in the LWDA Notice. (See Id., at p. 541, fn. 5; Uribe v. Crown Building Maintenance Co. (2021) 70 Cap.App.5th 986, 1005.)

The Court is concerned that the Class and PAGA releases fail to comply with the case law above and are overbroad. For the class release, it purports to cover claims that were alleged or reasonably could have been alleged based not just on the facts asserted in the complaint, but also on “claims, causes of action, and legal theories.” Regarding the PAGA release, it purports to cover claims for civil penalties under the Labor Code other than PAGA penalties; does so without regard to the factual allegations contained in the Operative Complaint and/or the PAGA notice; and includes claims “ascertained in the course of the Actions.” As to this final phrase, it provides no clarity as to the scope of the PAGA release because those claims are undefined and not reasonably knowable to any future litigant or court attempting to resolve res judicata issues.

The Court recommends the class release be revised[2] to cover “all claims that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged based on the facts alleged, in the Operative Complaint.” The Court recommends the PAGA release be revised to cover all claims and causes of action for civil penalties pursuant to PAGA that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, based on the facts alleged in the Operative Complaint and/or PAGA notice. The Parties shall be prepared to address the Court’s concerns, including whether they are agreeable to the proposed revisions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011304: TANNER, et al. vs ROYAL TRUCK BODY LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Plaintiff’s moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was reached after sufficient investigation and arms-length negotiations. On or around May 6, 2025, the Parties participated in an all-day mediation presided over by Lynn Frank, Esquire. (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 9.) The mediation was successful, and the Parties agreed to globally resolve all class and PAGA claims in the Action. (Ibid.) The Settlement was reached after extensive factual and legal investigation and research; the exchange of informal discovery; substantial negotiation regarding the scope of informal discovery; exchange of documents and information that included review of time and pay records and analysis thereof with the aid of Plaintiff and expert consultant; analysis of shifts and Workweeks worked by Class Members in the Class Period, analysis of the number of pay periods and number of Aggrieved Employees in the PAGA Period for calculating PAGA penalties, number of Class Members eligible for wage statement penalties and waiting time penalties; an analysis of Plaintiff’s employment records; extensive correspondence and communication between counsel; a review of pleadings, evidence and rulings in similar actions litigated elsewhere in the state; a review of similar cases in the same industry elsewhere in the country; and preparation for and attendance at a full-day mediation, followed by further discussions and coordination to finalize the terms and conditions of the general settlement parameters agreed to by the Parties. (Id., ¶ 16.)

Plaintiff estimated Defendant’s exposure as follows:

Claim Maximum Exposure Unpaid Wages (Detrimental $457,171 ($10,089 and $447,082) Rounding and Off-the-Clock) Regular Rate of Pay $15,110 Meal Periods $496,429 Rest Periods $1,255,029 Wage Statement Violations $1,270,800 Waiting Time Penalties $822,230 PAGA Penalties $4,450,900 Total: $8,767,669

(Mendoza Decl., ¶¶ 18-39(g).) Counsel adequately describes Plaintiff’s claims, Defendant’s defenses, the exposure analysis summarized above, and the risks of continued litigation. (Ibid.) Plaintiff entirely discounted the failure to indemnify for business expenses claim. (Id., ¶ 33.) Ordinarily, the Court prefers Counsel to estimate Defendants’ realistic exposure and quantify any reductions applied for settlement purposes; however, the Court is satisfied with Counsel’s analysis. Counsel is advised that any future motions should include a complete exposure analysis, consistent with the Court’s Checklist. The GSA represents approximately 8.78% of Defendant’s maximum exposure.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011304: TANNER, et al. vs ROYAL TRUCK BODY LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Bibiyan Decl., ¶¶ 2-15.) Counsel attests to their belief that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 10; Bibiyan Decl., ¶¶ 17, 21.) 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 $50,000, with 75% ($37,500) allocated to the LWDA PAGA Payment and 25% ($12,500) allocated to the Aggrieved Employees as Individual PAGA Payments. (SA, ¶ 3.2.5.) The Aggrieved Employees are “all current or former non-exempt employees that worked for Defendant in California during the PAGA Period.” (Id., ¶ 1.4.) The PAGA Period means the period from June 7, 2023 through and including July 6, 2025. (Id., ¶ 1.31.) As summarized above, the Aggrieved Employees’ portion will be distributed on a pro rata basis. (Id., ¶¶ 1.24, 3.2.5.1.) The Aggrieved Employees are subject to a separate release (subject to the proposed revisions above), and the Agreement makes clear that Aggrieved Employees cannot opt out of the PAGA portion of the settlement. (Id., ¶¶ 5.3, 7.5.4.)

Plaintiff estimated Defendant’s PAGA exposure to be $4,450,900, including $635,400 for overtime violations, $1,270,800 for minimum wage violation, $635,400 for meal period violations, $635,400 for rest period violations, $1,270,800 for wage statement violations, and $3,100 for waiting time penalties. (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 39(g).) However, Counsel acknowledged that Defendant argued that PAGA penalties cannot be stacked, that the PAGA claims are unmanageable for trial, a violation for each pay period cannot be established, and the Court is unlikely to exercise its discretion to award penalties under PAGA. (Ibid.) Accordingly, Counsel believes a 90% discount is appropriate, resulting in a reasonable exposure estimate of $445,090. (Id., ¶ 40.) 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.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011304: TANNER, et al. vs ROYAL TRUCK BODY LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

The Notice fairly describes the settlement. (SA, Exh. A (“Notice”).) However, the following issues must be addressed: - If the Parties revise the releases to address the Court’s concerns, the Parties must revise the Notice accordingly. (Notice, pp. 6-7.) - 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. The Court’s Zoom link is now: https://saccourt-ca- gov.zoomgov.com/j/16184738886. The call-in information remains unchanged. (Id., p. 9- 10.)

With these revisions, the Notice is approved.

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

The Agreement provides for a Class Counsel fees payment of not more than 35% of the GSA ($269,500) and a Class Counsel litigation expenses payment of not more than $30,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.2.) Plaintiff argues that the requested fee award is reasonable and well within the historical range of attorney’s fees awards under the common fund theory. (Mot., p. 18:18-28.) Plaintiff further argues that the requested award is fair compensation for undertaking complex, risky, expensive and time-consuming litigation on a contingent fee basis. (Ibid.)

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 one-third 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 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011304: TANNER, et al. vs ROYAL TRUCK BODY LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Settlement Administrator

The Agreement designates Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions (“Phoenix”) as the Administrator and provides for an Administrator expenses payment not to exceed $9,250, except for a showing of good cause and as approved by the Court. (SA, ¶¶ 1.2, 3.2.3.) Phoenix’s not to exceed bid is $9,250. (Lawrence Decl., ¶ 22, Exh. B.)

Phoenix 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 not more than $10,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.) Plaintiff describes his efforts and estimates that he spent at least 25 hours assisting in the prosecution of this action. (Tanner Decl., ¶¶ 9-15.)

The service payment is preliminarily approved.

Compliance Hearing

The Court sets a Compliance Hearing for August 21, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. No later than August 14, 2026, Plaintiff shall file (1) the Parties’ stipulation and Second Amended Complaint; and (2) a revised Class Notice and redline copy for the Court’s review.

If the Parties revise the class and PAGA releases to address the Court’s concerns, the Parties shall also file evidence of the Agreement’s amendment and submission to the LWDA.

Finally, Plaintiff shall file a revised Proposed Order that acknowledges any revisions to the releases, attaches the revised Notice as Exhibit A, and corrects the Final Approval Hearing date, as set below.

If Plaintiff adequately addresses the Court’s concerns, the Court will sign the revised Proposed Order, and no appearance will be required at the Compliance Hearing.

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 February 5, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. If either party is unavailable on that date, the parties shall meet and confer to identify three other

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011304: TANNER, et al. vs ROYAL TRUCK BODY LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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 date by when both of the following have occurred: (a) the

Court enters a Judgment on its Order Granting Final Approval of the Settlement; and (b) the Judgment is final. The Judgment is final as of the latest of the following occurrences: (a) if no Participating Class Member objects to the Settlement, the day the Court enters Judgment; (b) if one or more Participating Class Members objects to the Settlement, the day after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal from the Judgment; or if a timely appeal from the Judgment is filed, the day after the appellate court affirms the Judgment and issues a remittitur.” (SA, ¶ 1.18.) [2] 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, ¶ 12.9.)

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011304: TANNER, et al. vs ROYAL TRUCK BODY LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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

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

Please note that the Complex Civil Case Department now provides information to assist you in managing your complex case on the Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/civil/complex-civil-cases.aspx. The Court strongly encourages parties to review this website regularly to stay abreast of the most recent complex civil case procedures. Please refer to the website before directly contacting the Court Clerk for information.