Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation

34-2023-00337627-CU-OE-GDS: Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Lutovio J. Iuliano, Robert Winiecki, and Terry Snipes’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion for preliminary approval of the Parties’ class action and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) settlement is UNOPPOSED and tentatively GRANTED, subject to the Parties’ clarification of the scope of the class and PAGA releases and the Compliance Hearing set 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 08/28/2026 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.

Background

On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff Iuliano submitted a PAGA Notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”). (Hawkins Decl., ¶ 3.) On April 7, 2023, Plaintiff Iuliano initiated the instant action against Defendants Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. and WFS Express, Inc. alleging a single cause of action for civil penalties under PAGA. (Ibid.; Complaint.) Plaintiff Iuliano’s original complaint attaches his PAGA Notice. (Complaint, Exh. A.) On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff Iuliano dismissed Defendant Worldwide Flight Services, Inc.

On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff Winiecki submitted a PAGA Notice to the LWDA. (Hawkins Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs fail to provide a copy of Plaintiff Winiecki’s PAGA Notice. Plaintiffs must do so now.

On March 25, 2024, Defendant removed a state court action previously filed by Winiecki to the

34-2023-00337627-CU-OE-GDS: Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, pending as Winiecki v. WFS Express, Inc. et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-00933-DAD-CKD (“the Winiecki Action”). [1] (Hawkins Decl., ¶ 3.)

On April 17, 2025, Defendant removed a state court action previously filed by Snipes to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, pending as Snipes v. WFS Express, Inc. et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 25-cv-03412-MMC (“the Snipes Action”).[2] (Hawkins Decl., ¶ 3.)

On July 14, 2026, Plaintiff Iuliano filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) adding Plaintiffs Winiecki and Snipes, as well as their claims. (Hawkins Decl., ¶ 4.)

Plaintiffs now seek preliminary approval of their and Defendant WFS Express, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Settlement Agreement and Stipulation to Resolve Class Action and PAGA Claims (“Agreement”). (Hawkins Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1 (“SA”).) The Agreement attached to Mr. Hawkins’s declaration is not executed by Defendant or Defendant’s Counsel. (Id., ¶ 2, fn 1.) Mr. Hawkins provided a fully executed copy in his August 11, 2026 supplemental declaration. (Hawkins Supp. Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)

Plaintiffs submitted the moving papers to the LWDA. (7-23-26 Proofs of Service.)

Legal Standard

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

In determining whether to approve a class settlement, the court’s responsibility is to “prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class” through settlement because the rights of the class members, including the named plaintiffs, “may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties.” (Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Kintetsu Enters. of Am. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 46, 60.) The court must independently determine “whether the settlement is in the best interests of those whose claims will be extinguished” and “make an independent assessment of the reasonableness of the terms to which the parties have agreed.” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 130, 133.) The burden of establishing the fairness and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337627-CU-OE-GDS: Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

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, Plaintiffs seek provisional certification of the following class: “all current and former nonexempt employees of Defendant in the State of California during the Class Period.” (SA, ¶ 6.) The Class Period means “the period from February 20, 2020, to and including March 13, 2026.” (Id., ¶ 9.)

Plaintiffs argue that provisional certification is appropriate because (1) the proposed Class, consisting of approximately 5,319 current or former employees, is ascertainable from Defendant’s business records; (2) common issues of fact and law predominate because the California statutes relating to each of Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendant’s defenses apply with equal force to the Class Members, Plaintiffs’ contend that Defendant’s policies and practices apply class-wide; (3) a class action is the most advantageous method of dealing with the claims of the Class Members; (4) Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the Class claims because they arise

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337627-CU-OE-GDS: Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

from the same factual bases and are based on the same legal theories applicable to other Class Members; (5) Plaintiffs are adequate representatives because their interests are coextensive with the interests of the Class, they have demonstrated their ability to advocate for the Class, and they have retained competent Counsel with extensive experience. (Mot., pp. 15:14-18:5.) 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

Plaintiffs are preliminarily appointed as Class Representatives. (SA, ¶ 9.) James Hawkins APLC, Melmed Law Group P.C., The Markham Law Firm, and United Employees Law Group, collectively, are preliminarily appointed as Class Counsel. (Id., ¶ 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 Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $2,700,000 to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims. (SA, ¶¶ 21, 59, 66.) Defendant shall separately pay the employer’s share of any payroll taxes associated with the wage portion of the Individual Settlement Payments. (Id., ¶¶ 15, 68.) Within 14 calendar days after the Effective Date,[3] Defendant shall remit to the Administrator: (i) the GSA of $2,700,000.00 and (ii) the employer’s payroll taxes for any portion of the Individual Settlement Payments designated as wages (collectively, the “Settlement Fund”). (Id., ¶ 75(b).)

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA: - An award of attorneys’ fees of no more than 35% of the GSA, which equals $945,000, and actual litigation costs incurred by Class Counsel not to exceed $45,000. (SA, ¶ 68(a).) - Settlement Administration costs, currently estimated to be $54,990. (Id., ¶ 68(b).) - Enhancement awards of up to $15,000 to each Plaintiff, totaling $45,000. (Id., ¶ 68(c).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337627-CU-OE-GDS: Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

- PAGA Penalties in the amount of $135,000, 75% of which ($101,250) will be allocated to the LWDA and 25% of which ($33,750) will be allocated to the Aggrieved Employees as PAGA Payments. (Id., ¶ 68(d).)

The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) – is approximately $1,475,010 and will be distributed to the Participating Class Members on a pro rata basis as Individual Settlement Payments and/or Participating Class Member Payments. (SA, ¶¶ 23, 28, 37.) Participating Class Member Payments shall be calculated from the NSA based on the number of weeks worked by each Participating Class Member, rounded up to the nearest whole week. (Id., ¶ 68(e)(i).) Specifically, each Participating Class Member’s Payment shall be calculated by dividing the Participating Class Member’s weeks worked in a non-exempt position by the total number of weeks worked by all Class Members in a non-exempt position during the Class Period and multiplying this figure by the NSA. (Ibid.)

Similarly, the Aggrieved Employees’ portion of the PAGA penalties will be distributed on a pro rata basis as Individual PAGA Payments using the same formula for pay periods in the PAGA Period. (Id., ¶¶ 22, 68(d), 68(e)(ii).) The Participating Class Member Payments shall be reported as follows: (i) 10% of the amount distributed to each Participating Class Member shall be considered wages, and shall be reported as such to each Participating Class Member on a W-2 Form; (ii) 10% shall be considered interest on the unpaid wages, and (iii) approximately 80% to statutory penalties, and shall be reported as such to each Participating Class Member on an IRS Form 1099. (Id., ¶ 70(a).)

While the Agreement is silent, the Court assumes that Individual PAGA Payments will be allocated 100% as penalties and will be reported on an IRS Form 1099.[4] The Parties understand that the Participating Class Members and Aggrieved Employees who receive an Individual Settlement Payment, including an Individual PAGA Payment, pursuant to the Agreement shall be solely responsible for any and all tax obligations associated with such receipt. (Id., ¶ 76(b).)

Within 21 calendar days after entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, Defendant shall provide to the Administrator the Class List. (SA, ¶ 71.) Upon receipt of the Class List, the Administrator shall perform a search based upon the National Change of Address Database to update and correct any known or identifiable address changes. (Id., ¶ 71(a).) Within 14 calendar days after receipt of the Class List from Defendant, the Administrator shall send the Notice to each Class Member via First Class U.S.

Mail. (Ibid.) Receipt of the Notice shall be presumed as to each and every Class Member whose Notice is not returned to the Administrator as undeliverable within 14 calendar days after mailing. (Ibid.) The Administrator shall re-mail any notice packet returned by the United States Postal Service with a forwarding address on or before the expiration of the Notice Period. (Id., ¶ 71(b).) The Administrator shall use the appropriate skip tracing and National Change of Address searches to increase the likelihood of delivery of the Notice to Class Members, and to re-mail the notice packets returned by the Postal Service without a forwarding address upon locating new or alternate addresses after a reasonable search. (Id., ¶ 71(c).)

It shall be conclusively presumed that those Class Members whose re-mailed Notice is not returned to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337627-CU-OE-GDS: Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

the Administrator as undeliverable within 14 calendar days after remailing, received the Class Notice. (Id., ¶ 71(b).) Class Members will have 60 days after the Notice is mailed to dispute the Workweeks attributed to them, opt out of the settlement; and/or submit written objections to the settlement. (Id., ¶¶ 27, 72, 73, 74.) Class Members who receive a re-mailed Notice will have 15 days from the date of the re-mailing to object, opt out, or dispute the Workweeks attributed to them. (Id., ¶¶ 27, 71(b).)

The distribution of Individual Settlement Payments to Participating Class Members and Aggrieved Employees shall occur no later than 10 calendar days after receipt of the Settlement Fund from Defendant. (SA, ¶ 75(c).) The distribution of the LWDA Payment, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and the Enhancement Awards shall also occur no later than 10 calendar days after the Settlement Administrator receives the Settlement Fund from Defendant. (Id., ¶ 75(d).) If a Participating Class Member’s or Aggrieved Employee’s check is returned to the Settlement Administrator, the Settlement Administrator shall make reasonable efforts to re-mail it to the Participating Class Member or Aggrieved Employee at the correct address. (Id., ¶ 75(e).)

It is expressly understood and agreed that the checks for the Individual Settlement Payments, including the Individual PAGA Payments, shall become void and no longer available if not cashed within 180 calendar days after mailing. (Ibid.) The funds from uncashed and voided checks shall be transferred to the State of California’s Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Participating Class Member/Aggrieved Employee. (Ibid.)

Releases

“Upon Defendant’s funding of the GSA and Employer’s Taxes to the Settlement Administrator, the Named Plaintiffs and all Participating Class Members shall be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released, settled, compromised, relinquished and discharged any and all of the Released Parties from the Released Class Claims.” (SA, ¶ 62.) The “Released Class Claims” means “all claims alleged to have occurred during the Class Period that (i) arise from the facts, matters, transactions or occurrences alleged in the Actions, Operative Complaints, PAGA Actions, and/or PAGA Notices or that could have been alleged in the Actions, Operative Complaints, PAGA Actions, and/or PAGA Notices based on such facts; and/or (ii) arise from the facts, matters, transactions or occurrences alleged, or that could have been alleged, to include, but are not limited to, claims premised on the failure to pay all minimum wages and overtime compensation including, but not limited to, time spent working off-the-clock (including time responding to work communications, going through security, waiting in line to clock in or out, and in executing regular tasks/duties); failure to provide off-duty meal periods and rest breaks where employees are free to leave the premises or premium payments; failure to provide records; failure to provide and maintain complete and accurate itemized wage statements including failure to list the correct employer on wage statements; split shift violations; failure to keep complete and accurate payroll records; untimely payment of wages during employment and at the time of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337627-CU-OE-GDS: Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

termination; failure to pay wages, including overtime wages at the regular rate; failure to pay meal period penalties at the regular rate; failure to pay rest break penalties at the regular rate; failure to pay paid sick leave at the regular rate; failure to provide supplemental paid sick leave; violations of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 204(b), 210, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 246, 351, 432, 510, 512, 516, 551, 552, 558, 1174, 1174(d), 1174.5, 1175, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, 2800, 2802; 2698; any and all allegations and claims pled in the PAGA Notices and the Operative Complaints; and related violations of the applicable California Wage Orders including Wage Orders 4-2001, and 9-2001 and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 11000 et seq. Excluded from the definition of the Released Class Claims are claims for vested benefits, wrongful termination, unemployment insurance, disability, social security, workers’ compensation claims, FEHA-related claims for retaliation, discrimination or harassment, and any claims outside the Class Period.” (Id., ¶ 40.)

“All Aggrieved Employees release the Released Parties for the Released PAGA Claims in the PAGA Period. More specifically, in exchange for the PAGA Settlement Amount, and upon funding of the GSA and Employer’s Taxes to the Settlement Administrator, all Aggrieved Employees, including but not limited to the Named Plaintiffs[] shall be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released, settled, compromised, relinquished and discharged any and all of the Released Parties from the Released PAGA Claims.

The Aggrieved Employees and the State of California shall be deemed, by operation of the Final Order and Judgment, to have agreed not to sue or otherwise make a claim against Defendant or any of the Released Parties for the Released PAGA Claims that arose during the PAGA Period.” (SA, ¶ 63.) The “Released PAGA Claims” means “claims for penalties under the Private Attorneys’ General Act of 2004, codified at California Labor Code § 2698, et seq., that during the PAGA Period (i) arise from the facts, matters, transactions or occurrences alleged in the PAGA Actions and/or PAGA Notices or that could have been alleged in the PAGA Actions and/or PAGA Notices based on such facts; and/or (ii) arise from the facts, matters, transactions or occurrences alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the PAGA Actions.

Without limiting the foregoing, the Released PAGA Claims include, but are not limited to, claims premised on the failure to pay all minimum wages and overtime compensation including, but not limited to, time spent working off-the-clock (including time responding to work communications, going through security, waiting in line to clock in or out, and in executing regular tasks/duties); failure to provide off-duty meal periods and rest breaks where employees are free to leave the premises or premium payments; failure to provide records; failure to provide and maintain complete and accurate itemized wage statements including failure to list the correct employer on wage statements; split shift violations; failure to keep complete and accurate payroll records; untimely payment of wages during employment and at the time of termination; failure to pay wages, including overtime wages, at the regular rate; failure to pay meal period penalties at the regular rate; failure to pay rest break penalties at the regular rate; failure to pay paid sick leave at the regular rate; failure to provide supplemental paid sick leave; violations of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 204(b), 210, 226, 226.3,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337627-CU-OE-GDS: Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

226.7, 246, 351, 432, 510, 512, 516, 551, 552, 558, 1174, 1174(d), 1174.5, 1175, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, 2802; 2698; any and all allegations and claims pled in the PAGA Notices and the Operative Complaints; and related violations of the applicable California Wage Orders including Wage Orders 4-2001, and 9-2001 and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 11000 et seq. Excluded from the definition of the Released PAGA Claims are claims for vested benefits, wrongful termination, unemployment insurance, disability, social security, workers’ compensation claims, FEHA-related claims for retaliation, discrimination or harassment, and any claims outside the PAGA Period.” (Id., ¶ 41.)

Generally, in cases involving both class and PAGA claims, the separate class and PAGA releases must be tailored to the claims that were alleged or reasonably could have been alleged based on the facts alleged in the complaint and/or LWDA Notice. (See Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 538-539, 541, fn. 5 [“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.”]; Uribe v. Crown Building Maintenance Co. (2021) 70 Cap.App.5th 986, 1005.)

The Court has a number of concerns about the structure of the class and PAGA releases. As a threshold matter, both releases are needlessly dense, and the Court is not persuaded they comply with the instruction of Amaro and Uribe. Regarding the class release, it first purports to cover all claims alleged that “(i) arise from the facts, matters, transactions or occurrences alleged in the Actions, Operative Complaints, PAGA Actions, and/or PAGA Notices or that could have been alleged in the Actions, Operative Complaints, PAGA Actions, and/or PAGA Notices based on such facts,” rather than the claims alleged or that reasonably could have been alleged based on the factual allegations.

Then, with an and/or connector, it purports to cover claims that “(ii) arise from the facts, matters, transactions or occurrences alleged, or that could have been alleged, to include, but are not limited to, claims premised on” an exhaustive list of claims and Labor Code sections, without clear reference to the factual allegations for the “could have been alleged” clause. These emphasized phrases create ambiguity and raise a concern about overbreadth. Finally, it includes a reference to Labor Code section 2698, despite the separate PAGA release.

The PAGA release similarly incorporates the two-part structure, incorporating claims that arise from the “facts, matters, transactions or occurrences alleged” in the PAGA Actions and/or Notices “based on such facts” “and/or” those claims that “arise from the facts, matters, transactions or occurrences alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the PAGA Actions,” again, without reference to the factual allegations for the “could have been alleged” clause.

In the Court’s experience, it is sufficient for the class release to release all claims that were alleged or reasonably could have been alleged, based on the factual allegations in the operative complaint and/or PAGA Notice. A descriptive list of the claims actually alleged in the operative

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337627-CU-OE-GDS: Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

complaint and supported by factual allegations is permissible, but not necessary. For the PAGA release, it is sufficient to release all claims for civil penalties under PAGA that were alleged or reasonably could have been alleged based on the factual allegations in the operative complaint and/or PAGA Notice.

The Parties shall be prepared to address the Court’s concerns, including whether the releases can be revised[5] to simplify their structure and comply with the pertinent case law.

Only Plaintiff Iuliano is subject to a general release. (SA, ¶¶ 20, 64.) Footnotes one and two to the Agreement indicate that Plaintiffs Snipes and Winiecki shall execute separate confidential settlement agreements. (SA, fns. 1 and 2, ¶ 64.) The Parties shall also be prepared to discuss these separate agreements, including their general terms, and why they do not create a conflict of interest.

Exposure Analysis

Plaintiffs’ moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was reached after sufficient investigation and arms-length negotiations. Plaintiffs’ Counsel conducted a thorough investigation into the factual and legal issues implicated by Plaintiffs’ claims and was able to objectively assess the settlement’s reasonableness. (Hawkins Decl., ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs’ Counsel performed a thorough investigation into the claims at issue, which included: (1) determining Plaintiffs’ suitability as class representatives and representative private attorneys general through interviews, background investigations, and analyses of employment records and related records; (2) evaluating all of Plaintiffs’ potential claims; (3) researching similar wage and hour class actions as to the claims brought, the nature of the positions, and the type of employer; (4) analyzing employees’ time and wage records; (5) reviewing Defendant’s employment policies and practices; (6) researching settlements in similar cases and the prior settlement in this case; (7) requesting, and reviewing formal business records for Plaintiff and the putative class including relevant policies and records that consisted of over 350,000 lines of time and pay data, along with relevant data points; (8), evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendant’s liability for purposes of settlement; (9) drafting the mediation brief; and (10) participating in the mediation. (Id., ¶ 12.)

Throughout the litigation, Defendant produced hundreds of thousands of lines of information and in both electronic and pdf formats, including policies, handbooks, relevant policies, and payroll and time records. Defendant also provided relevant data points and information regarding the number of employees holding these positions during the relevant time period; as well as information concerning the total number of potential class members, both current and former, the applicable hourly rates, workweeks and pay periods, and other data related to the alleged class. (Id., ¶ 14.)

On December 15, 2025, all Parties participated in mediation with Daniel J. Turner, Esq., a respected mediator of complex wage-and-hour actions, and with the assistance of the mediator’s evaluations, the Parties ultimately reached the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337627-CU-OE-GDS: Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

settlement that is memorialized in the Settlement Agreement. (Id., ¶¶ 7, 15.)

Plaintiffs estimated Defendant’s exposure as follows:

Claim Maximum Exposure Failure to Pay Wages for the Off-the-Clock Work $4,256,026.00 Overtime Regular Rate Claim $34,980.09 Meal Period Claim $2,673,383.00 Rest Break Claim $5,346,766.00 Expense Reimbursement Claim $643,750.00 Failure to Accurately Calculate Sick Pay $1,394,700.00[6] Waiting Time Penalties $18,444,132.00 Wage Statement Penalties $4,842,150.00 Failure to Timely Pay Wages Penalties $5,171,300.00 PAGA Penalties $7,340,800.00

Total: $50,147,987.09

(Hawkins Decl., ¶ 25.) Defendant’s total exposure on the underlying Labor Code claims (“damages claims”), as opposed to penalty claims, is approximately $12,954,905. (Id., ¶ 24.) Counsel adequately describes Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendant’s defenses, the risks of continued litigation, and the exposures summarized above. (Id., ¶¶ 17-25.) 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. Here, the GSA represents 5.38% of Defendant’s total maximum exposure and 20.84% of Defendant’s maximum exposure on the damages claims.

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Hawkins Decl., ¶ 34; Supanich Decl., ¶¶ 5-11, Exhs. 1 and 2; Haines Decl., ¶ 3; Markham Decl., ¶¶ 3-10.) Counsel attests to their belief that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Hawkins Decl., ¶¶ 13, 15, 16, 25, 38; Supanich Decl., ¶¶ 16, 18, 26; Markham Decl., ¶ 13.) 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 $135,000, 75% of which ($101,250) will be allocated to the LWDA and 25% of which ($33,750) will be allocated

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337627-CU-OE-GDS: Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

to the Aggrieved Employees as PAGA Payments. (SA, ¶ 68(d).) The “Aggrieved Employees” are “all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant in the State of California during the PAGA Period.” (Id., ¶ 2.) The PAGA Period means “the period from January 31, 2022, until March 13, 2026.” (Id., ¶ 34.) As discussed above, the Aggrieved Employees’ portion of the PAGA penalties will be distributed on a pro rata basis as Individual PAGA Payments. (Id., ¶¶ 22, 68(d), 68(e)(ii).) Subject to any amendments to address the Court’s concerns, the Aggrieved Employees are subject to a separate release. (Id., ¶¶ 41, 63.) The Agreement makes clear that Aggrieved Employees cannot opt out of the PAGA portion of the settlement. (Id., ¶ 73.)

Plaintiffs estimated Defendant’s maximum PAGA exposure to be $7,340,800, based on 73,408 pay periods and a $100 penalty per pay period. (Hawkins Decl., ¶ 25.) Counsel acknowledged that penalties could be reduced substantially given the written policies in place. (Ibid.) The PAGA allocation represents approximately 1.84% 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: - Where the Agreement refers to “Plaintiff” in the singular, it should be corrected to refer to “Plaintiffs.” (Notice, pp. 2-5, 8-9.) - The Notice includes the following language: “Plaintiffs 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 Aggrieved Employees.” (Id., p. 4.)

The Court finds this language is unnecessary and may improperly discourage class members from objecting to the settlement. Accordingly, it must be removed. - Pursuant to the Agreement, Defendant shall fund the settlement within 14 days of the Effective Date, not 30 days after the judgment becomes final. (See SA, ¶ 75(b).) The Notice must be corrected accordingly. (Notice, p. 4.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337627-CU-OE-GDS: Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

- The tax treatment must be revised, consistent with the allocation in the Agreement. (SA, ¶ 70(a).); Notice, p. 5.) - If the Parties revise the releases to address the Court’s concerns, the Notice must be revised 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. The Notice must be updated accordingly. (Id., 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. (Notice, p. 9.)

With these modifications, the Notice is approved.

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

The Agreement provides for an award of attorneys’ fees of no more than 35% of the GSA, which equals $945,000, and actual litigation costs incurred by Class Counsel not to exceed $45,000. (SA, ¶ 68(a).) Counsel attests that they have “executed a joint prosecution agreement where the Attorneys Fees Award is split between counsel, executed [in] writing by counsel for Plaintiffs and all Plaintiffs as well.” (Hawkins Decl., ¶ 39.) However, Counsel fails to specify the split. Counsel must do so now. Plaintiffs conclusively argue that the Court should preliminarily approve the requested fee award. (Mot., p. 15:4-14.)

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

34-2023-00337627-CU-OE-GDS: Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

Settlement Administrator

The Agreement designates Apex Class Action Administrators (“Apex”) as Administrator and provides for the payment of settlement administration costs not to exceed $54,990. (SA, ¶¶ 44, 68(b).)

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

Class Representative Enhancement Award

The Agreement provides for the payment of enhancement awards of up to $15,000 to each Plaintiff, totaling $45,000. (SA, ¶ 68(c).) Plaintiffs generally describe their efforts and estimate the time they spent assisting Counsel with the prosecution of this action. (Iuliano Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, 11 [45-50 hours]; Winiecki Decl., ¶¶ 6-8, 11 [15-20 hours]; Snipes Decl., ¶¶ 6-8 [70-80 hours].)

Plaintiff Winiecki’s declaration seeks a service payment of $7,500. (Winiecki Decl., ¶ 13.) However, Plaintiffs’ motion does not even cite to Plaintiff Winiecki’s declaration and simply argues that the $15,000 enhancement award contemplated in the Agreement is “fair and reasonable.” (Mot., pp. 14:6-15:3.) Plaintiff Winiecki’s individual counsel also assumes a $15,000 award, consistent with the terms of the Agreement. (Supanich Decl., ¶¶ 4, 21-22.) The Court assumes the reference in Plaintiff Winiecki’s declaration is an error. Plaintiffs are expected to exercise care and diligence in preparing materials for the Court’s review.

The requested enhancement awards are higher than those typically awarded by the Court, especially in light of the modest hours reported and Plaintiffs Winiecki’s and Snipes’s separate settlement agreements. The awards are preliminarily approved at this time, but the Court may exercise its discretion to reduce the amounts at final approval.

Compliance Hearing

The Court sets a Compliance Hearing for August 28, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. No later than August 21, 2026, Plaintiffs shall file (1) a copy of Plaintiff Winiecki’s PAGA Notice; (2) a declaration generally describing Counsel’s fee-splitting agreement; and (3) a revised Notice and redline copy for the Court’s review.

If the Parties revise the Agreement’s releases to address the Court’s concerns, Plaintiffs shall also file proof of the Agreement’s revision and submission of the amended Agreement to the LWDA.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337627-CU-OE-GDS: Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

If the Parties’ adequately address the Court’s concerns, the Court will sign the Proposed Order, adding the final approval hearing set below at page 8, 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 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 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]Plaintiff Winiecki initially filed in this Court on February 20, 2024 (Case No. 24CV003061).

The Winiecki Action alleged the following claims: (1) failure to pay all minimum wages; (2) failure to pay all overtime wages; (3) failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums; (4) failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums; (5) failure to maintain accurate employment records; (6) failure to pay wages timely during employment; (7) failure to pay all wages at separation; (8) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; and (9) violation of California’s unfair competition law. (Winiecki Action Complaint.) On August 1, 2024, Plaintiff Winiecki filed an FAC adding a claim for PAGA penalties. (Winiecki Action FAC.) [2] Plaintiff Snipes initially filed a wage and hour class action complaint in San Francisco County

(Case No. CGC-25-622515) on February 18, 2025, alleging causes of action for (1) failure to pay minimum and/or regular wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements; (6) failure to reimburse business expenses; (7) failure to pay all wages due upon termination; and (8) violation of the unfair competition law. (Snipes Action Complaint.) The Court assumes Plaintiff Snipes did not submit a PAGA Notice. [3] The “Effective Date” means “the effective date of the Agreement, which shall be the later of

(i) if no Participating Class Member objects to the Settlement, or if all objections to the Settlement have been formally withdrawn by the time of the Final Order and Judgment, the day the Court enters Judgment; or (ii) if an appeal, review, or writ is sought from the Final Order or Final Judgment, the day after the Final Order and Final Judgment are affirmed or the appeal, review, or writ is dismissed or denied, and the Final Order and Final Judgment are no longer subject to further judicial review. The Effective Date is conditioned upon the Court’s having entered a Final Order and Judgment as set forth in the Agreement.” (SA, ¶ 14.) [4] If the Court’s assumption is incorrect, the Parties shall clarify at the hearing.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337627-CU-OE-GDS: Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B [5] The Agreement provides that it “may be altered, amended, modified or waived, in whole or in

part, only in a writing signed by all signatories to the Agreement and approved by the Court.” (SA, ¶ 84.) [6] Counsel’s summary describes this as “PAGA penalties”

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.

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 Plaintiffs 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00337627-CU-OE-GDS: Lutovio J. Iuliano, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general vs. Worldwide Flight Services Inc a Delaware Corporation 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B