Cruz Lopez v. JKT Associates, Inc.

notice of hearing must be given at the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 unless the court has prescribed a shorter period.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(c)(1) [Italics added.]) II. Stephanie Qunicy Ms. Quincy states in her declaration that the application and supporting documents will be submitted to the State Bar of California on the same date the application is filed. However, as of the time the court reviewed Ms. Quincy’s application, proof of service of the application on the State Bar’s San Francisco office had not been filed.

III. Lindsay Fiore Similarly, Ms. Fiore also states in her declaration that the application and supporting documents will be submitted to the State Bar of California on the same date the application is filed. However, as of the time the court reviewed this matter, proof of service of the application on the State Bar’s San Francisco office had not been filed. IV.

Conclusion

Except for the failure to file proof of service on the State Bar, the applications comply with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40 and this court finds no reason not to grant the applications. Therefore, the hearings on the applications are CONTINUED to September 11, 2026, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 16, to allow applicants Stephany Quincy and Lindsay Fiore to file proof of service of the applications on the State Bar of California at the San Francisco office.

8. SCV-273893, Cruz Lopez v. JKT Associates, Inc., a California Corporation

Plaintiff Jose Luis Cruz Lopez (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant JKT Associates, Inc. (“Defendant”). Specifically, Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: (1) Granting preliminary approval of the Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement; (2) Certifying a Class, for settlement purposes only; (3) Approving the Class Notice and plan for its distribution; (4) Appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative, for settlement purposes only; (5) Appointing Moon Law Group, PC as Class Counsel, for settlement purposes only; (6) Appointing ILYM Group, Inc. (“Administrator”) as the Administrator; and (7) Scheduling a Final Approval Hearing no earlier than 120 days from the date of preliminary approval.

I. Legal Standards To prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class, the settlement or dismissal of a class action requires court approval. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800.) The court must determine the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. (Id., at p. 1801.) The purpose of the requirement is “the protection of those class members, including the named plaintiffs, whose rights may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties.” (Ibid.) “The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether the settlement is fair. [Citation.]

It should consider relevant factors, such 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 the class members to the proposed settlement. [Citation.] The list of factors is not exhaustive and should be tailored to each case.

Due regard should be given to what is otherwise a private consensual agreement between the parties. The inquiry “must be limited to the extent necessary to reach a reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a 9

whole, is fair, reasonable and adequate to all concerned.” [Citation.] “Ultimately, the [trial] court's determination is nothing more than ‘an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough justice.’ [Citation.]” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co., supra, at p. 1801.) 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., p. 1802.)

Preliminary approval is warranted if the settlement falls within a “reasonable range.” (See North County Contractor’s Ass’n., Inc. v. Touchstone Ins. Servs. (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 1085, 1089-90.) Compromise is inherent and necessary. (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 224, 250.) II. Allegations and Mediation Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to compensate him and others for off-the-clock work, failed to incorporate all renumeration into employees’ regular rate of pay for purposes of paying overtime, meal break premium, and sick pay, and that Defendant failed to accurately record employees’ time, resulting in underpayment to the Class.

Plaintiff’s meal and rest period claims are based on allegations that, due to Defendant’s policies and practice, Class Members’ breaks were often short, late, interrupted, and sometimes missed altogether, and that Defendant did not pay all premium wages for non-compliant breaks. Plaintiff further brings a claim for unreimbursed necessary business expenses based on allegations that Class Members were required to maintain purchase steel-toed boots and incur cellphone usage expenses for work-related purposes, without reimbursement from Defendant.

Finally, Plaintiff also brings derivative claims for waiting time penalties, wage statement violations, unfair business practices, and civil penalties under PAGA. On November 18, 2025, the Parties participated in a full day of private mediation with Darren M. Cohen, Esq., an experienced class and PAGA action mediator. In preparation for mediation, the Parties agreed to a protocol for an informal production of documents and information before mediation. Prior to mediation, Plaintiff obtained from Defendant, through informal discovery, documents, testimony, electronic time and pay records, policy documents and data that were necessary and helpful to evaluate the claims asserted in this action.

Defendant produced a statistically sound sample of time and pay records for approximately 26.62% of the putative Class. Defendant also provided information regarding the estimated number of current and formerly employed Class Members, Aggrieved Employees, and PAGA Pay Periods. In preparation for mediation, Plaintiff’s Counsel reviewed and analyzed all the information Defendant provided, including the sample records and documents regarding Defendant’s wage-andhour policies. Plaintiff’s Counsel retained a statistics expert to analyze the sample records and prepare a damage analysis prior to the mediation.

The sample time and pay records analyzed contained 5,036 actual shifts worked (representing roughly 14.80% of total shifts worked in the Class Period), which allowed Plaintiff’s expert to prepare an analysis with a reasonable degree of certainty. In conjunction with their extensive factual investigation, Plaintiff’s Counsel also investigated the applicable law regarding the claims and defenses asserted in the litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Counsel was able to evaluate the probability of class certification, success on the merits, and Defendant’s maximum and realistic monetary exposure for all claims.

Thus, Plaintiff’s and his Counsel’s familiarity with the facts of the case and the legal issues raised by the pleadings allowed them to act intelligently in negotiating the Settlement. III. Settlement The Parties reached resolution at the mediation. The Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) is $250,000.00, subject to potential increase under an Escalator Clause, and is non-reversionary. (Settlement, ¶ 3.1.) Defendant will separately pay its employer-side payroll taxes owed on the Wage 10

Portion of Individual Class Payments. (Id.) Defendant shall fully fund the Gross Settlement Amount of $250,000.00 and also fund the amounts necessary to fully pay Defendant’s share of payroll taxes by transmitting the funds to the Administrator no later than thirty (30) days after the Effective Date. (Id. at ¶ 4.1.) The Settlement includes a payment up to $2,500.00 payable from the GSA, subject to the Court’s approval, to Plaintiff as the Class Representative, in addition to the amount he is eligible to receive as a Class Member and Aggrieved Employee. (Id. at ¶¶ 1.14, 3.2.1.)

This award is for initiating the Action and providing services in support of the Action. (Id. at ¶ 1.14.) In the event the award finally approved is less, the difference will revert to Participating Class Members. (Id. at ¶ 3.2.1.) The Settlement allocates $24,000.00 from the GSA for settlement of the Released PAGA Claims, which will be distributed 75% ($18,000.00) to the LWDA and 25% ($6,000.00) to Aggrieved Employees pursuant to PAGA law governing Plaintiff’s claims. (Id. at ¶ 1.33.) Each Aggrieved Employee will be entitled to a pro rata share of the 25% share of the PAGA Penalties directly proportional to their number of PAGA Pay Periods. (Id. at ¶ 3.2.5.1.)

This results in an average Individual PAGA Payment of roughly $75.95 for each of the estimated 79 Aggrieved Employees ($6,000.00 / 79), and a PAGA Pay Period value of roughly $1.27 for each of the 4,724 estimated Pay Periods in the PAGA Period ($6,000.00 / 4,724). After deducting the Class Representative Enhancement Award, the Class Counsel Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Costs Payments, the PAGA Penalties allocation, and the Administration Expenses Payment from the GSA, in the amounts specifically approved by the Court, any difference in the amounts requested and the amounts awarded will be allocated to the Net Settlement Amount for distribution to Participating Class Members. (Id. at ¶ 1.27.)

Accordingly, the Net Settlement Amount will be no less than $110,166.67 for an estimated Class of 139 individuals. (Moon decl., ¶19.) Each Class Member who does not opt-out will be entitled to a pro rata share of the Net Settlement Amount that is directly proportional to the number of Workweeks worked during the Class Period. (Id. at ¶ 3.2.4.) The estimated $110,116.67 Net Settlement Amount results in an average Individual Class Payment of roughly $792.57 for each of the estimated 139 Class Members ($110,116.67 / 139), and a Workweek value of roughly $13.77 for each of the 8,000 estimated Workweeks in the Class Period ($110,116.67 / 8,000). (Moon decl., ¶21.)

The Settlement releases Defendant and its former and present shareholders, predecessors, successors, assigns, partners, subsidiaries, parents, and each of its owners, managerial employees, agents, directors, and/or officers, and any individual or entity that could be liable for any of the released class and PAGA claims. (Settlement, ¶ 1.40.) IV. Attorney Fees and Costs The Settlement permits a fee application of not more than 33 1/3% of the GSA (currently estimated to be $83,333.33) for reasonable attorneys’ fees, plus reimbursement for actual litigation costs not to exceed $20,000.00, payable to Class Counsel from the GSA. (Settlement. ¶ 3.2.2.)

V. Administration Costs The Settlement provides an Administration Expenses Payment to the Administrator, payable from the GSA, in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00, except for on a showing of good cause and as approved by the Court. (Settlement, ¶ 3.2.3.) VI. Class Certification and Notice Plaintiff has established that class certification for settlement purposes is appropriate. The class is sufficiently ascertained and numerous. Common questions of law or fact predominate. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class.

Plaintiff can adequately represent the class and Class Counsel are experienced in wage and hour and employment class action cases. 11

The proposed notice to class members is sufficient to enable class members to make an informed decision about their participation. VII.

Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED. The final fairness hearing is hereby set for the next available hearing date of February 19, 2027, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 16. The court will sign the proposed order.

12