DE LEON RUANO vs PEACHTREE HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al.

24CV015204: DE LEON RUANO vs PEACHTREE HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Maria Franchesca De Leon Ruano’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 Compliance Hearing set below.

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 01/22/2027 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 July 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed this putative class action against Defendant Peachtree Hospitality Management, LLC (“Defendant”) alleging: (1) failure to pay minimum and straight time wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failure to indemnify employees for expenditures and (7) unfair business practices. (Yslas Decl., ¶ 3.) On August 6, 2024, Plaintiff provided written notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and Defendant the specific provisions of the Labor Code alleged to have been violated. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) On June 23, 2026, the Court granted the Parties’ joint stipulation for leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”). (6-23-26 Order.) Plaintiff’s FAC adds a PAGA claim.

Plaintiff now seeks preliminary approval of the Parties’ Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement and Class Notice (“Agreement”). (Yslas Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. 2 (“SA”).) Plaintiff submitted the settlement to the LWDA. (Id., ¶ 7, 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

24CV015204: DE LEON RUANO vs PEACHTREE HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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.)

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015204: DE LEON RUANO vs PEACHTREE HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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 persons employed by Defendant in California and classified as an hourly-paid non-exempt employee who worked for Defendant during the Class Period.” (SA, ¶ 1.5.) The Class Period means the period from February 3, 2020 to April 27, 2026. (Id., ¶ 1.12.)

Plaintiff argues that provisional certification is appropriate because (1) the proposed class of approximately 1,085 Class Members is sufficiently numerous and readily ascertainable from Defendant’s business records; (2) common questions of law and fact predominate because Plaintiff alleges that Defendant maintained common employment policies and/or practices that unlawfully deprived Class Members of wages, meal period, rest periods, reimbursements for business expenses, accurate wage statements, and timely payment of wages upon separation of employment; (3) Plaintiff is typical of the Class because Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by the same Defendant and injured by Defendant’s common wage and hour policies and practices; (4) Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel will adequately represent the Class because Plaintiff’s interests are coextensive with the Class’s interests, Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to advocate for the Class, and Plaintiff has retained qualified and experienced Counsel; and (5) a class action is superior to a multitude of individual lawsuits. (Mot., pp. 9:7-12:12.) 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.) John G. Yslas, Arrash T. Fattahi, and John O. Bishay of Wilshire Law Firm, PLC are preliminarily 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015204: DE LEON RUANO vs PEACHTREE HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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 $1,900,000 to resolve Plaintiff’s claims. (SA, ¶¶ 1.22, 4.1, 11.1.) Defendant shall separately pay any and all employer payroll taxes owed on the wage portions of the Individual Class Payments. (Id., ¶ 4.1.) 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, and none of the GA will revert to Defendant. (Ibid.) Within 65 days after the Effective Date,[1] Defendant will transmit half of the GSA to the Administrator. (Id., ¶ 5.3.) Within 60 days thereafter, Defendant will transmit the remaining half of the GSA as well as Defendant’s share of payroll taxes. (Ibid.)

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA: - A Class Representative Service Payment to the Class Representative of not more than $10,000. (SA, ¶ 4.2.1.) - A Class Counsel Fees Payment of not more than 35%, which is currently estimated to be $665,000, and a Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment of not more than $50,000. (Id., ¶ 4.2.2.) - An Administrator Expenses Payment not to exceed $12,950, except for a showing of good cause and as approved by the Court. (Id., ¶ 4.2.3.) - PAGA Penalties in the amount of $100,000, with 65% ($65,000) allocated to the LWDA and 35% ($35,000) allocated to the Aggrieved Employees as Individual PAGA Payments. (Id., ¶ 4.2.5.)

The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) – is approximately $1,062,050 and will be distributed to the Participating Class Members 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., ¶ 4.2.4.) Similarly, the Aggrieved Employees’ portion of the PAGA penalties will be distributed on a pro rata basis as Individual PAGA Payments, which will be calculated by (a) dividing the amount of the Aggrieved Employees’ 35% share of PAGA Penalties ($35,000) 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., ¶¶ 1.24, 4.2.5.1.)

For tax purposes, 20% of each Participating Class Member’s Individual Class Payment will be allocated to settlement of wage claims and will be reported on an IRS W-2 Form, and 80% will be allocated to settlement of claims for interest and penalties and will be reported on IRS 1099 Forms. (Id., ¶ 4.2.4.1.) The Administrator will report the Individual PAGA Payments on IRS 1099 Forms. (Id., ¶ 4.2.5.2.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015204: DE LEON RUANO vs PEACHTREE HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Within 14 days after Defendant fully funds the GSA, the Administrator will mail checks distributing the settlement. (SA, ¶ 5.4.) 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., ¶ 5.4.1.) Before mailing any checks, the Settlement Administrator must update the recipients’ mailing 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 a United States Postal Service (“USPS”) forwarding address. (Id., ¶ 5.4.2.)

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. (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., ¶ 5.4.1.) 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., ¶ 5.4.3.)

Not later than 15 days after the Court grants Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, Defendant will deliver the Class Data to the Administrator. (SA, ¶ 5.2.) 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 Class Notice, with Spanish translation. (Id., ¶ 7.4.2.) Before mailing, the Administrator shall update Class Member addresses using the National Change of Address database. (Id., ¶ 7.4.2.)

Not later than 3 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 remail the Class Notice to the most current address obtained. (Ibid.) Class Members will have 60 days after the Administrator mails the Notice to request exclusion from the settlement, submit written objections, and/or challenge their workweek calculations. (Id., ¶¶ 1.43, 7.5.1, 7.6, 7.7.2.)

The Response Deadline will be extended an additional 15 days beyond the 60 days otherwise provided 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 Portion of the Individual Class Payments, Plaintiff, Class Members, and Class Counsel will release claims against all Released Parties as follows:” - Plaintiff is subject to a general release. (SA, ¶¶ 3, 3.1.) - “All Participating Class Members, on behalf of themselves and their respective former and present representatives, agents, attorneys, heirs, administrators, successors and assigns, release Released Parties from all claims that were alleged, or reasonably could

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015204: DE LEON RUANO vs PEACHTREE HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

have been alleged, based on the Class Period facts stated in the Operative Complaint.” (Id., ¶¶ 3, 3.2.) - “All Non-Participating Class Members who are Aggrieved Employees are deemed to release, on behalf of themselves and their respective former and present representatives, agents, attorneys, heirs, administrators, successors and assigns, the Released Parties from all claims for PAGA penalties that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, based on the PAGA Period facts contained in the Operative Complaint and/or the PAGA Notice.” (Id., ¶¶ 3, 3.3.)

Plaintiff’s moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was reached after sufficient investigation and arms-length negotiations. On February 26, 2026, the Parties participated in a private full-day mediation with Steven G. Mehta, Esq. (Yslas Decl., ¶ 5.) Prior to attending mediation, Plaintiff’s Counsel thoroughly investigated the claims, applicable law, and potential defenses. (Id., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s Counsel assessed the value to the class claims using the data and documents that Defendant produced in informal discovery, including class data providing the number of Class Members, the number of workweeks in the Class Period, and the number of pay periods in the PAGA Period, Plaintiff’s personnel file/documents concerning Plaintiff, Defendant’s employee handbook(s), Defendant’s written wage-and-hour policies, job descriptions, and a random sampling of time and payroll records. (Ibid.)

The mediator made a proposal, which was accepted by the Parties. (Id., ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff estimated Defendant’s exposure as follows:

Claim Maximum Discount Realistic Exposure Exposure Minimum and Overtime $3,522,767.04 40% chance of succeeding $563,642.73 Wages at class certification and a 40% chance of succeeding at trial Meal Periods $1,033,164.93 50% chance of succeeding $206,632.99 at class certification and a 40% chance of succeeding at trial Rest Periods $2,439,997.56 30% chance of succeeding $146,399.85 at class certification and a 20% chance of succeeding at trial Reimbursement $762,900.00 30% chance of succeeding $68,661.00 at class certification and a 30% chance of succeeding

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015204: DE LEON RUANO vs PEACHTREE HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

at trial Waiting Time Penalties $2,327,097.24 40% for the risk and $279,251.67 uncertainty of obtaining class certification and 30% for prevailing at trial Inaccurate Wage $2,211,050.00 40% for the risk and $265,326.00 Statements uncertainty of obtaining class certification and 30% for prevailing at trial PAGA $2,234,100.00 10% change for the risk $223,410.00 and uncertainty of prevailing at trial Total: $14,531,076.77 $1,753,324.24

(Yslas Decl., ¶¶ 13-20.) Counsel adequately describes Plaintiff’s claims, Defendant’s defenses, the exposures above, and the underlying assumptions and methodologies used to calculate them. (Id., ¶¶ 10-20.) The GSA represents approximately 13.08% of Defendant’s maximum exposure and 108.37% of Defendant’s realistic exposure. Settlement Class Members are eligible to receive an average net benefit of approximately $978.85, with an estimated weekly valuation of $17.40 per workweek. (Id., ¶ 21.)

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Yslas Decl., ¶¶ 22-32.) 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 $100,000, with 65% ($65,000) allocated to the LWDA and 35% ($35,000) allocated to the Aggrieved Employees as Individual PAGA Payments. (SA, ¶ 4.2.5.) Aggrieved Employee means a person employed by Defendant in California and classified as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee who worked for Defendant during the PAGA Period. (Id., ¶ 1.4.) The PAGA Period means the period from August 6, 2023 through April 27, 2026. (Id., ¶ 1.31.) As summarized above, the Aggrieved Employees’ portion will be distributed on a pro rata basis, and Aggrieved Employees are subject to a separate release. (Id., ¶¶ 3.3, 4.2.5.1.) The Agreement makes clear that Aggrieved Employees cannot opt out of the PAGA portion of the settlement. (Id., ¶ 7.5.4.)

Plaintiff estimated Defendant’s maximum PAGA exposure to be $2,234,100, based on an initial $100 penalty for each of the 22,341 pay periods in the PAGA Period. (Yslas Decl., ¶ 19.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015204: DE LEON RUANO vs PEACHTREE HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

However, Counsel recognized that PAGA gives the Court discretion to reduce penalties for a variety of reasons, including where to do otherwise would result in an unjust award. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Court discounted the exposure to account for the risk and uncertainty of prevailing at trial, resulting in a realistic exposure of $223,410. (Ibid.) The Agreement’s PAGA allocation represents approximately 4.48% of Defendant’s maximum PAGA exposure and 44.76% of Defendant’s realistic 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 proposed Notice fairly describes the settlement. (SA, Exh. A (“Notice”).) However, the following issues must be addressed: - Effective April 13, 2026, the Court has moved to Department 8B in the new Tani G. Cantil- Sakauye Courthouse located at 500 G St. Sacramento, California, 95814. Where an address and/or Department for the Court is inserted into the Notice, the Parties should use this new information. (Notice, p. 9.) - 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 revisions, the Notice is approved.

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

The Agreement provides for a Class Counsel Fees Payment of not more than 35%, which is currently estimated to be $665,000, and a Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment of not more than $50,000. (SA, ¶ 4.2.2.) Plaintiff argues that the requested fee award is reasonable and appropriate as a percentage of the common fund and in line with awards by California courts. (Mot., pp. 19:15-20:2.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015204: DE LEON RUANO vs PEACHTREE HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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 cost allocation with the expectation that Counsel will provide a declaration, in moving for final approval, that shows actual costs.

Settlement Administrator

The Agreement designates ILYM Group, Inc. (“ILYM”) as Administrator and provides for an Administrator Expenses Payment not to exceed $12,950, except for a showing of good cause and as approved by the Court. (SA, ¶¶ 1.2, 4.2.3, 7.1.) Counsel sought bids from 3 administrators and selected the bid with the lowest cost. (Yslas Decl., ¶ 35, Exh. 5.)

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

Class Representative Service Payment

The Agreement provides for a Class Representative Service Payment to the Class Representative of not more than $10,000. (SA, ¶ 4.2.1.) Plaintiff describes her efforts and estimates that she has spent 45 hours prosecuting this action and will spend an additional 3 hours assisting through the approval process. (De Leon Ruano Decl., ¶ 11.)

The requested 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015204: DE LEON RUANO vs PEACHTREE HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

14, 2026, Plaintiff shall file a revised Notice and redline copy for the Court’s review.

Plaintiff shall separately file a revised Proposed Order, clarifying that the estimated attorneys’ fees payment is “Not to exceed $665,000” at paragraph 10, referencing the revised Notice at paragraph 13; and attaching the revised Notice as Exhibit A.

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

Final Approval Hearing

The Court will again review and consider the terms of this settlement at the time of the final approval hearing. The Court sets a Final Approval Hearing for January 22, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. If either party is unavailable on that date, the parties shall meet and confer to identify three other Fridays at 9:00 a.m. that work for the parties to schedule the hearing. They shall then submit those dates to the Court via email at Dept8B@saccourt.ca.gov, and the Court will reschedule the hearing accordingly.

The briefing shall be filed in conformity with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

[1] The “Effective Date” means the date by when the Court enters a Judgment on its Order

Granting Final Approval of the Settlement. (SA, ¶ 1.18.)

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8B at (916) 874-5762 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore.

If you are not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, a Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015204: DE LEON RUANO vs PEACHTREE HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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/j/16184738886 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16184738886

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

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