DUNWOOD vs BRINK’S INCORPORATED, et al.

25CV002238: DUNWOOD vs BRINK'S INCORPORATED, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

Tentative Ruling

NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED

Plaintiff Damian Dunwood’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for approval of the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) settlement is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED as follows.

Overview

On January 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendants Brink’s Incorporated and Silas Steele (collectively “Defendants”) alleging the following causes of action: (1) failure to pay regular wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) meal period violations; (4) rest period violations; (5) failure to reimburse expenses; (6) waiting time penalties; (7) retaliation; (8) wrongful termination; (9) negligent hiring, retention, or supervision; (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (11) unfair competition; and (12) public nuisance.

On April 16, 2025, the Court signed and filed the Parties’ stipulation for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) to add a cause of action for civil penalties pursuant to PAGA. On April 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed the 1AC.

On June 9, 2026, the Court signed and filed the Parties’ stipulation for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“2AC”). On June 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed the operative 2AC, which Plaintiff represents added additional alleged PAGA violations and revised the definition of Aggrieved Employees. (See Bezrin Decl. ¶ 3.)

On January 16, 2026, the Parties participated in mediation with mediator Lisa Klerman, and following a full-day of mediation, the Parties reached a resolution. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Prior to mediation, the Parties engaged in informal discovery and exchanged relevant information, including representative employee data, a representative sample of time and payroll data, and applicable policies covering the full statute of limitations period for the PAGA claims. (Id. at ¶ 7.)

The Parties entered into a written settlement agreement and now move for approval of the PAGA settlement. This ruling incorporates by reference the definitions in the Agreement and all capitalized terms defined therein shall have the same meaning in this ruling as set forth in the Agreement. (Bezrin Decl. ¶ 1; Exhibit List Exh. A (“Agreement”).)

Aggrieved Employees

25CV002238: DUNWOOD vs BRINK'S INCORPORATED, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

Aggrieved Employees are defined as “all hourly, non-exempt current and former employees who worked for Defendant in California during the PAGA Period.” (Agreement ¶ 1.4.) The “PAGA Period” is defined to mean “November 15, 2022, through the earlier of the date that: (a) the PAGA settlement is approved, or (b) 90 days from the date of execution of the Memorandum of Understanding, subject to Paragraph 8 below.” (Id. at ¶ 1.24.) Plaintiff estimates there are approximately 1,138 Aggrieved Employees who worked a total of 53,499 PAGA Pay Periods during the PAGA Period. (Id. at ¶ 5.1)

Plaintiff’s counsel gave notice of the Settlement Agreement to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”). (Bezrin Decl. ¶ 30, Exhibit List Exh. F.)

Settlement Administrator

The Court approves Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the Settlement Administrator.

Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable Settlement

The purpose of PAGA is to “create a means of ‘deputizing’ citizens as private attorneys general to enforce the Labor Code.” (Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 489, 501.) A PAGA plaintiff is an “aggrieved employee” who brings a civil action “personally and on behalf of other current or former employees to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations” as the “proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies.” (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 380; Lab.

Code, § 2699.) The settlement of a PAGA claim requires court approval pursuant to the operative PAGA statute, which states that the “[t]he superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part.” (Lab. Code, § 2699(l)(2).) Such review and approval must “ensur[e] that any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.)

Aside from the requirement that the court “review and approve” a settlement in a civil action filed under PAGA (Lab. Code, § 2699(l)(2)), PAGA itself does not provide a standard for this review and approval in the majority of PAGA cases. (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 75 (Moniz) [citing Flores v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide (C.D. Cal. 2017) 253 F.Supp.3d 1074, 1075 [“[PAGA] is surprisingly short on specifics”]].) In Moniz, the First District Court of Appeal clarified that a trial court “should evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA’s purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV002238: DUNWOOD vs BRINK'S INCORPORATED, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (Id. at p. 77.) Because many of the factors used to evaluate class action settlements bear on a settlement’s fairness – including the strength of the plaintiff’s case, the risk, the stage of the proceeding, the complexity and likely duration of further litigation, and the settlement amount – these facts can be useful in evaluating the fairness of a PAGA settlement. (Ibid.)

Gross PAGA Settlement Amount

Defendants will pay a Gross PAGA Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $700,000. (Agreement, ¶¶ 1.13, 4.1.) The GSA is non-reversionary. (Id. at ¶ 3.1) Pursuant to the Agreement, the following will be paid out of the GSA: (1) PAGA Counsel Fees Payment equaling not more than 1/3 of the GSA (estimated to be $233,333) and litigation expenses payment not to exceed $20,000 to PAGA Counsel; (2) settlement administration costs not to exceed $15,000, absent good cause; and (3) a PAGA Payment in the amount of at least $431,666.67 will be paid from the GSA (65% of which (estimated to be $280,583.33) will be allocated to the LWDA PAGA Payment and 35% of which (estimated to be $151,083.34) will be allocated to the Individual PAGA Payments). (Id. at ¶¶ 1.3, 1.13-1.14, 1.17, 1.20, 4.1-4.2.)

Aggrieved Employees assume full responsibility and liability for any taxes owed on their Individual PAGA Payment. (Id. at ¶ 4.2.3.) For tax purposes, the PAGA Payment will be considered entirely as civil penalties. (Exhibit List Exh. E (“Notice”), p. 1.) For any Aggrieved Employee whose 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 State Controller's Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Aggrieved Employee. (Agreement ¶ 5.4.4.)

Escalator Clause

The Agreement contains the following escalator clause:

Based on its records, Defendant estimates that, as of the date of this Settlement Agreement, (1) there are 1,138 Aggrieved Employees who worked 53,499 Pay Periods during the PAGA Period. In the event the actual number of PAGA Pay Periods escalate beyond 10% more than 53,499 (i.e., 58,849 pay periods), the Gross PAGA Settlement Amount will be increased proportionally. For example, if the number is 11% higher, the Gross PAGA Settlement Amount will be increased by 1%. In the alternative, the Defendant may elect to shorten the release end

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV002238: DUNWOOD vs BRINK'S INCORPORATED, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

date in order to stay within the 10% cushion. (Agreement ¶ 9.)

Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiffs request an attorneys’ fee award of $233,333.33, representing 1/3 of the GSA. (Agreement ¶ 4.2.1; Berzin Decl. ¶ 28.) The Court finds the requested award to appropriate and reasonable under the common fund method.

Plaintiff requests an award of actual litigation costs in the amount of $14,388.40 (lower than the amount identified in the Agreement). (Berzin Decl. ¶ 28; Exhibit List Exh. G.) Plaintiff’s counsel represents that the difference between the actual costs and the $20,000 allocated (pursuant to the Agreement) will be added to the PAGA Payment. The Court finds the claimed costs are reasonable.

Disposition

The papers demonstrate the settlement was reached after arms-length bargaining between the parties and was reached after sufficient discovery and negotiations, which allowed the Parties, and therefore, this Court, to act intelligently with respect to the settlement. Plaintiff’s counsel conducted an investigation into the facts and law and issues in this case, including the exchange of informal discovery and the review of relevant information. The settlement appears to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Berzin Decl., ¶¶ 3-13.)

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

The Court approves the Notice of Settlement, submitted with Plaintiff’s Motion. (Exhibit List Exh. E.)

The Court sets a Settlement Compliance Hearing for May 21, 2027, at 10:30 a.m., in Department 8A.

At least 15 days prior to the hearing, Counsel shall file a declaration regarding the status of the distribution of the settlement funds. If the Court is satisfied that the settlement funds have been fully distributed, no appearance will be required.

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers and include the above regarding the settlement compliance hearing.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8A at (916) 874-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV002238: DUNWOOD vs BRINK'S INCORPORATED, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

If oral argument is requested, the parties may appear by Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom link – https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16108301121 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 / ID: 16108301121

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

Status Conference re: Settlement Compliance is scheduled for 05/21/2027 at 10:30 AM in Department 8A at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.