CASTON vs NORTH VALLEY, LLC, et al.

24CV018816: CASTON vs NORTH VALLEY, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Brandon Caston’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 Release and Plaintiff providing the materials requested below. Accordingly, the Parties’ APPEARANCE IS REQUIRED.

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 12/18/2026 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 September 19, 2024, Plaintiff commenced this class action against Defendant North Valley, LLC (“Defendant”) alleging claims for: (1) failure to pay all overtime wages; (2) meal period violations; (3) rest period violations; (4) failure to pay all sick time; (5) wage statement violations; (6) waiting time penalties; (7) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and (8) unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 16.) Plaintiff also served a notice pursuant to PAGA on the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and Defendant based upon the same underlying Labor Code violations. (Ibid.) Plaintiff failed to provide a copy of Plaintiff’s PAGA notice and must do so now.

Pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) adding a representative PAGA cause of action on May 4, 2026. (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 16.)

Plaintiff now seeks preliminary approval of the Parties’ Class Action and PAGA Settlement Administration (“Agreement”). (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. A (“SA”).) Plaintiff submitted the settlement to the LWDA. (Id., ¶ Exh. B.)

Legal Standard

24CV018816: CASTON vs NORTH VALLEY, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

The law favors the settlement of lawsuits, particularly in class actions and other complex cases where substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, expense, and rigors of formal litigation. (See Neary v. Regents of Univ. of Cal (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273, 277-281; Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 19, 52.) However, a class action may not be dismissed, compromised, or settled without approval of the court, and the decision to approve or reject a proposed settlement is committed to the court’s sound discretion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769; Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234-35 (Wershba).)

In determining whether to approve a class settlement, the court’s responsibility is to “prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class” through settlement because the rights of the class members, including the named plaintiffs, “may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties.” (Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Kintetsu Enters. of Am. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 46, 60.) The court must independently determine “whether the settlement is in the best interests of those whose claims will be extinguished” and “make an independent assessment of the reasonableness of the terms to which the parties have agreed.” (Kullar v.

Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 130, 133.) The burden of establishing the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement is on the proponent. (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 245; see also 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135 1165-66.)

The Court does not rubber stamp these motions, but rather serves as a guardian of absent class members’ rights to ensure the settlement is fair. (Luckey v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 81, 95.) “Ultimately, the [trial] court’s determination is nothing more than ‘an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough justice.” (7-Eleven, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 1145.) “A settlement need not obtain 100 percent of the damages sought in order to be fair and reasonable. Compromise is inherent and necessary in the settlement process.

Thus, even if ‘the relief afforded by the proposed settlement is substantially narrower than it would be if the suits were to be successfully litigated,’ this is no bar to a class settlement because ‘the public interest may indeed be served by a voluntary settlement in which each side gives ground in the interest of avoiding litigation.’” (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 250, citations omitted.) The court’s primary objective for preliminary approval is to establish whether to direct notice of the proposed settlement to the class, invite the class’s reaction, and schedule a final fairness hearing. (Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions (6th ed. 2026) § 13:10.)

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV018816: CASTON vs NORTH VALLEY, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

class certification, a trial court reviewing an application for preliminary approval of a settlement must still find that the normal class prerequisites have been met. (See Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625-627 (1997); in accord, Carter v. City of Los Angeles (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 808, 826.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks provisional certification of the following class: “all individuals who are or were employed by Defendant as nonexempt hourly employees in California during the Class Period.” (SA, ¶ 1.4.) The Class Period is the period from September 19, 2020, through April 26, 2026. (Id., ¶ 1.11.)

Plaintiff argues that provisional certification is appropriate because: (1) the class of approximately 44 non-exempt employees are sufficiently numerous and readily ascertainable from Defendant’s payroll and employment records; (2) common questions of law and fact predominate because Plaintiff alleges that Class Members were subject to common wage-andhour policies and practices; (3) Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same alleged wage-and-hour policies and practices; and (4) Plaintiff is an adequate representative because Plaintiff understands his responsibilities, has no conflicts, and retained experienced Class Counsel’ and (5) a class action is superior to individual litigation. (Mot., pp. 10:1-11:9.) The Court finds Plaintiffs’ arguments persuasive and provisionally certifies the Class for settlement purposes for the reasons specified in Plaintiffs’ moving papers.

Class Representative and Class Counsel

Plaintiff is preliminarily appointed as Class Representative. (SA, ¶ 1.12.) Mehrdad Bokhour of Bokhour Law Group, P.C., and Joshua S. Falakassa of Falakassa Law, P.C. are preliminarily appointed as Class Counsel. (Id., ¶ 1.5.)

Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable Settlement

Before approving a class action settlement, the Court must find that the settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) The Court considers such factors as “the strength of plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV018816: CASTON vs NORTH VALLEY, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Settlement Amount (“GSA”) $325,000 to resolve Plaintiff’s claims. (SA, ¶¶ 1.20, 3.1, 12.1.) Defendant shall 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 PAGA Members to submit any claim as a condition of payment, and none of the GSA will revert to Defendant. (Ibid.) The GSA shall be paid as follows: 1/3 of the GSA shall be deposited into a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) within 30 days after the Court grants preliminary approval, and the remaining 2/3 shall be deposited into the QSF no later than June 30, 2027. (Id., ¶ 4.3.)

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA: - A Class Representative service payment of not more than $15,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.1.) - A Class Counsel Fees Payment of not more than $108,333.33 (representing one third of the GSA), and a Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment of not more than $25,000. (Id., ¶ 3.2.1.2.) - An Administrator Expenses Payment not to exceed $6,000, except for a showing of good cause and as approved by the Court. (Id., ¶ 3.2.1.3.) - PAGA civil penalties in the amount of $20,000, allocated 35% to the PAGA Members ($7,000) and 65% to the LWDA ($13,000) in settlement of the PAGA claims. (Id., ¶ 3.2.3.)

The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) – is approximately $150,666.67 and will be distributed to the Participating Class Members on a pro rata basis as Individual Class Payments. (SA, ¶¶ 1.21, 1.26.) An Individual Class Payment is calculated by (a) dividing the NSA by the total number of Workweeks worked by all Participating Class Members during the Class Period and (b) multiplying the result by each Participating Class Member’s Workweeks. (Id., ¶ 3.2.1.4.) Similarly, the PAGA Members’ portion of the PAGA penalties will be distributed on a pro rata basis as Individual PAGA Payments. (Id., ¶ 1.22.)

The Administrator will calculate each Individual PAGA Payment by (a) dividing the amount of the PAGA Member’s 35% share of PAGA Penalties ($7,000) by the total number of PAGA Pay Periods worked by all PAGA Members during the PAGA Period and (b) multiplying the result by each PAGA Member’s PAGA Pay Periods. (Id., ¶ 3.2.3.1.) For tax purposes, 33% 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 the remaining 67% will be allocated to settlement of claims for all interest and penalties and will be reported on IRS Form 1099. (Id., ¶ 3.2.1.5.)

The Administrator will report the Individual PAGA Payments on IRS 1099 Forms. (Id., ¶ 3.2.3.2.)

Within 7 days after Defendant funds the GSA, the Administrator will mail checks distributing the settlement. (SA, ¶ 4.4.) The Administrator will issue checks for the Individual Class Payments and/or Individual PAGA Payments and send them to the Class Members via First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid. (Id., ¶ 4.4.1.) The face of each check shall prominently state the date (no less than 180 days after the date of mailing) on which the check will be voided. (Id.,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV018816: CASTON vs NORTH VALLEY, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

¶ 4.4.1.) The Administrator will cancel all checks not cashed by the void date. (Ibid.) For any Class Member whose Individual Class Payment check or Individual PAGA Payment check is uncashed and cancelled after the void date, the Administrator shall transmit the funds represented by such checks to the California Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Class Member. (Id., ¶ 4.4.3.) 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 USPS forwarding address. (Id., ¶ 4.4.2.) 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.)

No later than 14 days after the Court grants Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, Defendant will deliver the Class Data to the Administrator. (SA, ¶ 4.2.) Using best efforts to perform as soon as possible, and in no event later than 15 days after receiving the Class Data, the Administrator will send to all Class Members identified in the Class Data, via first-class United States Postal Services (“USPS”) mail, the Class Notice. (Id., ¶ 7.4.2.) Not later than 5 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 re-mail the Notice to the most current address obtained. (Ibid.) Class Members shall have 45 days after the Administrator mails the Notice to Class and PAGA Members (the “Response Deadline”) to request exclusion from the settlement, submit written objections, and/or challenge their workweek calculations. (Id., ¶¶ 1.43, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6, 7.7.2.) The Response Deadline shall have an additional 14 calendar days beyond the 45 days otherwise provided if their 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 separate release. (SA, ¶¶ 5, 5.1.) - “In consideration for their awarded Individual Settlement Payments, as of the date the Settlement becomes Final and has been fully funded, all Participating Class Members[] release the Released Parties from all claims arising out of or related to the allegations set forth in the Operative Complaint, including any that were alleged or reasonably could have been alleged based on the facts alleged in the Operative Complaint that arose during the Class Period, including but not limited to claims for: (1) failure to pay all minimum wages (violations of Labor Code §§ 204, 558, 1194 et seq., 1197, 1198); (2) failure to pay all overtime wages (violations of Labor Code §§ 204, 210, 510,1194, 1197, 1198); (3) meal period (violations of Labor Code §§ 204, 510, 226.7, 512, 1194, 1198); (4) rest period violations (violations of Labor Code §§ 226.7, 516); (5) failure to pay all sick time (violations of Labor Code §§ 246, 1192, 1194 et seq., 1197, 1198); (6) wage

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV018816: CASTON vs NORTH VALLEY, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

statement violations (violation of Labor Code § 226); (7) waiting time penalties (violation of Labor Code §§ 201-203); (8) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses (violation of Labor Code §§ 2802-2804); (9) unfair competition (violation of California Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.)” (Id., ¶¶ 5, 5.2 [emphasis added].) - “As of the Effective Date, [1] Plaintiffs, acting as authorized proxies and agents of the LWDA/State of California, release and settle the LWDA’s/State’s claims for civil penalties under PAGA that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, based on the facts and violations described in the PAGA Notice and arising during the PAGA Period, against the Released Parties.” (Id., ¶¶ 5, 5.3.)

Generally, 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 Court is concerned that the emphasized language above is too broad insofar as is purports to cover all claims “arising out of or related to the allegations” and is not limited to those claims that “were alleged or reasonably could have been alleged based on the facts alleged.” The Court generally prefers a class release that simply releases all claims that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, based on the facts stated in the Operative Complaint.

The Court recommends the Parties revise the class release accordingly, which would also be consistent with the structure of the PAGA release. The Parties shall be prepared to address the Court’s concerns, including whether they agree to revise the release.[2]

Plaintiff’s moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was reached after sufficient investigation and arms-length negotiations. Prior to mediation, the Parties engaged in substantial informal discovery and investigation. (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 17.) Defendant produced, among other things, Plaintiff's personnel and payroll records, representative time and payroll records for the putative class, wage statements, relevant policies and procedures, and information regarding the size of the proposed class, workweeks, and PAGA pay periods. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff retained Berger Consulting Group to analyze the payroll and timekeeping data, including a statistical review of payroll and time records; evaluation of regular-rate overtime and paid sick leave calculations; meal and rest period compliance; waiting time penalties; wage statement penalties; expense reimbursement claims; and potential PAGA exposure. (Ibid.) Based on this investigation, Plaintiff and Class Counsel thoroughly evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of the claims, Defendant’s anticipated defenses, and the potential value of the Action before participating in settlement negotiations. (Ibid.)

On February 27, 2026, the Parties participated in a full-day mediation before experienced wage-and-hour mediator Marc Feder, Esq. (Id., ¶ 18.) After extensive arm’s-length negotiations conducted under Mr. Feder’s supervision, the Parties accepted a mediator’s proposal and reached the Settlement now before the Court. (Ibid.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV018816: CASTON vs NORTH VALLEY, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Based on Class Counsel’s independent investigation and detailed data obtained through informal discovery and information exchanges, and factoring in claim and liability certification probabilities, Class Counsel formulated detailed damages model, as follows:

Claim Maximum Exposure Discount Realistic Exposure Waiting Time Penalties $157,816.80 10% $142,035 Meal Period Claim $216,432 50% $108,216 Rest Period Claim $119,037 50% $59,518 Wage Statement Violations $62,600 50% $31,300 PAGA $112,000 -- $20,000

Total: $667,885.80 $361,069

(Bokhour Decl., ¶¶ 19-37.) Based on the risks and uncertainties, Plaintiff completely discounted the unpaid wages claim. (Id., ¶¶ 20-23.) Counsel adequately describes Plaintiff’s claims, Defendant’s defenses, the underlying assumptions for the exposures summarized above. (Id., ¶¶ 19-37.) The GSA represents approximately 48.66% of Defendant’s maximum exposure and 90.01% of Defendant’s realistic exposure.

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Bokhour Decl., ¶¶ 3-7; Falakassa Decl., ¶¶ 4-8.) Counsel attests to their belief that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Bokhour Decl., ¶¶ 13; Falakassa Decl., ¶¶ 13, 15, 24.) 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 PAGA civil penalties in the amount of $20,000, allocated 35% to the PAGA Members ($7,000) and 65% to the LWDA ($13,000) in settlement of the PAGA claims. (SA, ¶ 3.2.3.) The PAGA Members are any non-exempt hourly employees who work or worked for Defendant in California at any time during the PAGA Period. (Id., ¶ 1.29.) The PAGA Period means the period from September 19, 2023, through April 16, 2026. (Id., ¶ 1.31.) As summarized above, the PAGA Members’ portion will be distributed on a pro rata basis. (Id., ¶¶ 1.22, 3.2.3.1.) The PAGA Members are subject to a separate release, and the Agreement makes clear that they cannot opt out of the PAGA portion of the settlement. (Id., ¶¶ 5.3, 7.5.4.)

Plaintiff estimated Defendant’s maximum PAGA exposure to be $112,000, assuming an initial penalty of $100 per pay period and approximately 1,252 PAGA pay periods.[3] (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 34.) However, Counsel recognized that PAGA grants the Court broad discretion to reduce civil penalties to avoid awards that are unjust, arbitrary, oppressive, or confiscatory. (Id., ¶ 35.) In light of the risks, the Parties agreed to allocate $20,000 to resolve the PAGA claims. (Id., ¶ 36.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV018816: CASTON vs NORTH VALLEY, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

The PAGA allocation represents approximately 17.86% of Defendant’s maximum exposure. The Court finds the PAGA allocation reasonable under the circumstances and is entitled to a presumption of fairness and it is preliminarily approved.

Proposed Class Notice

The notice to Class Members must fairly apprise the prospective members of the terms of the settlement without expressing an opinion on the merits of the settlement. (7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1164; see also Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769.) “Whether a claimant would want to accept or reject the proposed settlement is a decision to be made by him independently and without influence or pressure from those competing parties who either favor or oppose the settlement.” (Phila. Hous. Auth. v. Am. Radiator & Std. Sanitary Corp. (E.D. Pa. 1970) 323 F.Supp. 364, 378.)

The Notice fairly describes the settlement. (SA, Exh. A (“Notice”).) However, the following issues must be addressed: - The Notice includes the following language: “Plaintiff and Class Counsel strongly believe the Settlement is a good deal for you because they believe that: (1) Defendant has agreed to pay a fair, reasonable and adequate amount considering the strength of the claims and the risks and uncertainties of continued litigation; and (2) Settlement is in the best interests of the Class Members and PAGA Members.” (Notice, p. 26.)

The Court finds this language is unnecessary and may improperly discourage class members from objecting to the settlement. Accordingly, it must be removed. - As summarized above, the GSA will be fully funded no later than June 30, 2027. (SA, ¶ 4.3.) The Notice must be corrected accordingly. (Notice, p. 26.) - If the Parties revise the class release to address the Court’s concerns, the Notice must be revised accordingly. (Id., p. 28.) - The PAGA Members’ portion of the PAGA civil penalties amount is $7,000.

The Notice must be revised accordingly. (Id., p. 29.) - 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. (Id., p. 31.)

With these modifications, the Notice is approved.

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

The Agreement provides for a Class Counsel Fees Payment of not more than $108,333.33 (representing one third of the GSA), and a Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment of not

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV018816: CASTON vs NORTH VALLEY, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

more than $25,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.2.) In compliance with California Rules of Professional Conduct section 1.5.1, Plaintiff signed a fee split agreement that provides that fees will be allocated between Class Counsel as follows: 50% to the Bokhour Law Group, P.C., and 50% to the Falakassa Law, P.C. (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 50; Falakassa Decl., ¶ 23.) Plaintiff argues that the fee award is fair as a percentage of the common fund and consistent with awards in similar cases. (Mot., pp. 18:15-19:1.)

The requested award is preliminarily approved. In moving for final approval, the Court expects Counsel to support their arguments with respect to this amount, including by providing information necessary to perform a lodestar analysis. (See In re Activision Sec. Litigation (N.D. Cal. 1989) 723 F.Supp. 1373, 1379; Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 557- 58 & fn. 13.; Martin v. Ameripride Servs. (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2011), 2011 WL 2313604 at *22 (collecting cases); Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc. (E.D. Cal 2010) 266 F.R.D. 482, 491 (same); see also Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 66 & n.11.)

The Court also preliminarily approves the Agreement’s costs allocation with the expectation that Counsel will provide a declaration, in moving for final approval, that shows actual costs.

Settlement Administrator

The Parties jointly selected ILYM Group, Inc. (“ILYM”) to serve as Administrator. (SA, ¶ 7.1.) The Agreement provides for an Administrator Expenses Payment not to exceed $6,000, except for a showing of good cause and as approved by the Court. (Id., ¶ 3.2.1.3.)

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 Plaintiff of not more than $15,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.1.) Plaintiff describes his efforts and estimates that he devoted approximately 35 to 40 hours to assisting Counsel in litigating this case. (Caston Decl., ¶¶ 7-10.)

While the service payment is higher than those typically awarded by this Court, the requested payment is preliminarily approved. The Court may exercise its discretion to reduce the amount at final approval.

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) a copy of Plaintiff’s PAGA notice, and (2) a revised Class Notice

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV018816: CASTON vs NORTH VALLEY, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

and redline copy for the Court’s review.

If the Parties revise the class release 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 corrects paragraph 13. Consistent with the terms of the settlement, in the alternative to submitting written objections, Class Members may appear at the Final Approval Hearing to present objections. The revised Proposed Order shall not suggest that Class Members waive their objections if they fail to submit written objections.

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 December 18, 2026 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 the Court has issued Final Approval or the date the

Court has entered Judgment, whichever date is later. (SA, ¶ 1.17.) [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, ¶ 12.8.) [3] The Court notes that these assumptions result in an estimated exposure of $125,200.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV018816: CASTON vs NORTH VALLEY, LLC, et al. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Parties requesting services of a court reporter may arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. The list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore is available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf.

If you are not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, a Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge. The signed form must be filed with the clerk prior to the hearing.

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

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

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.