LEON vs DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al.

Plaintiff’s separate request to file an oversized memorandum is GRANTED.

Background

On February 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Diagnostic Pathology Medical Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging class causes of action for (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Premium Pay in Lieu Thereof; (4) Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Premium Pay in Lieu Thereof; (5) Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; (6) Failure to Provide and Maintain Accurate Records; (7) Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; (8) Failure to Timely Pay Wages After Employment; and (9) Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (Complaint.) Plaintiff also alleged individual causes of action for various violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) violations. (Ibid.)

Also on February 19, 2025, Plaintiff provided written notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and Defendant of Plaintiff’s intention to seek PAGA penalties for Defendant’s alleged violations of the Labor Code. (Siegel Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. 2.) On December 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) adding a cause of action for PAGA penalties, as well as additional individual claims for discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination. (FAC.)

On February 26, 2026, the Court granted the Parties’ stipulation to dismiss Plaintiff’s individual claims with prejudice. (2-26-26 Order.) After the Parties resolved the Class claims through an MOU, Plaintiff reached a separate settlement of her individual claims. (Leon Decl., ¶¶ 27-28.)

Plaintiff now moves for preliminary approval of the Parties’ Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release of Class and PAGA Action (“Agreement”), as modified by the Parties’ Addendum. (Siegel Decl., ¶ 23, Exh. 1 (“SA”).) Plaintiff submitted the Agreement to the LWDA. (Id., ¶ 6, Exh. 3; 4-9-26 Proof 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).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003872: LEON vs DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al. 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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. 2025) § 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, Plaintiff seeks provisional certification of the following class: “All persons who worked at least one 3.5-hour shift as a non-exempt employee in California during the Class Period.” (SA, ¶ 20.) The Class Period means the period from February 19, 2021 through November 5, 2025, or when the total workweeks worked by the Class reaches 28,500, whichever is later. (Id., ¶ 21.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003872: LEON vs DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al. 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Plaintiff argues that provisional certification is appropriate because (1) the proposed class of approximately 260 current and former employees is sufficiently numerous and ascertainable from Defendant’s records; (2) common questions of law and fact predominate because Plaintiff alleges that the class is subject to a common rounding policy, overtime compensation, and meal and rest period policies and practices; (3) Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class because Plaintiff alleges claims arising out of Defendant’s policies and practices; (4) Plaintiff is an adequate representative because she understands her duties, has been willing to undergo the risks of litigation, and has no conflicts of interest with the Class, and she has retained experienced Counsel; and (5) a class action is superior to the litigation of multiple individual claims. (Mot., pp. 15:14-17:18.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments persuasive and provisionally certifies the Class for settlement purposes for the reasons specified in Plaintiff’s moving papers.

Class Representative and Class Counsel

Plaintiff is preliminarily appointed as Class Representative. (SA, ¶ 22.) Elliot J. Siegel and Melissa R. Rinehart of King & Siegel LLP are preliminarily appointed as Class Counsel. (Id., ¶ 18.)

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 Maximum Settlement Amount (“MSA”) of $733,875 to resolve Plaintiff’s claims. (SA, ¶¶ 30, 103.) Defendant agrees that it is responsible for employer-side payroll taxes, which are not included in the MSA and are to be paid in addition to the MSA. (Id., ¶ 30.) The MSA is non-reversionary. (Id., ¶ 30.) Within 7 calendar days after the Effective Date,[2] the Administrator will provide the Parties with an accounting of the amounts to be paid by Defendant. (Id., ¶ 50.)

Defendant will fund the MSA as follows: (1) $250,000 to be paid upon the latter of preliminary approval or June 30, 2026; (2) $250,000, plus all payroll taxes, to be paid on or before December 1, 2026; and (3) All remaining funds to be paid no later [than] June 30, 2027. (Ibid.) This payment schedule is due to Defendant’s financial condition and its business operations. (Marsee Decl., ¶¶ 2-18.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003872: LEON vs DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al. 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

The following amounts will be paid from the MSA: - Class Counsel’s Fees up to one-third of the MSA ($244,625), plus the reimbursement of actual reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with Class Counsel’s litigation and settlement of the Action up to $22,000. (SA, ¶ 51.) - A Class Representative Enhancement Payment of up to $10,000. (Id., ¶ 52.) - The reasonable costs of administration of the settlement, which is capped at no more than $25,000. (Id., ¶ 53.) - An LWDA payment of $75,000, with 65% ($48,750) paid to the LWDA and 35% ($26,250) distributed to the Aggrieved Employees. (Id., ¶ 54.)

The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) – is approximately $357,250[3] and will be distributed to the Participating Class Members on a pro rata basis as Individual Class Payments. (SA, ¶¶ 27, 31, 55.) Individual Class Payments will be calculated and apportioned from the NSA based on the Workweeks a Participating Class Member worked during the Class Period. (Id., ¶ 57.) Individual PAGA Payments will be separately calculated and apportioned from the portion of the PAGA amount intended for Aggrieved Employees. (Ibid.)

The Agreement contemplates that upon receipt of the second payment and final approval having been granted, Counsel shall cause a reasonable initial distribution to be made to the Class and Counsel, with a second distribution to occur after the MSA is fully funded. (SA, ¶ 50.) Within five calendar days of full funding, the Administrator will issue all remaining payments. (Ibid.) However, it is not clear from the Administrator’s estimate that a two-part distribution is actually contemplated. (See Green Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. B.) The Parties must clarify. If the Administrator’s quote does not cover a two-part distribution, the Parties shall be prepared to discuss whether that distribution is required and, if so, provide an updated quote from the Administrator.

All Individual Class Payments will be allocated as follows: of each Individual Class Payment, 10% will be allocated as alleged unpaid wages and reported on an IRS Form W-2, and 90% will be allocated as alleged unpaid civil penalties and unpaid interest and reported on an IRS Form- 1099. (SA, ¶ 73.) All Individual PAGA Payments will be allocated as alleged penalties and will be reported on an IRS Form-1099. (Ibid.) Any checks issued by the Administrator to Participating Class Members will be negotiable for 180 calendar days from the date the check was issued. (Id., ¶ 71.) 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 State Unclaimed Property Fund to be held in name of the Class Member. (Ibid.)

Within 5 calendar days of Preliminary Approval, Defendant will provide the Class List to the Administrator. (SA, ¶ 62.) Within 7 calendar days following receipt of the Class List, the Administrator will mail a Notice Packet to all Class Members via regular First-Class U.S. Mail,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003872: LEON vs DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al. 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

using the most current, known mailing addresses identified in the Class List. (Id., ¶ 63.) Prior to mailing, the Administrator will perform a search based on the National Change of Address database for information to update and correct for any known or identifiable address changes. (Id., ¶ 64.) Any Notice Packets returned to the Administrator as non-deliverable on or before the Response Deadline will be sent promptly via regular First-Class U.S. Mail to the forwarding address affixed thereto and the Administrator will indicate the date of such re-mailing on the Notice Packet. (Ibid.)

If no forwarding address is provided, the Administrator will promptly attempt to determine the correct address using a skip-trace, or other search and will then perform a single re-mailing. (Ibid.) Class Members will have 30 calendar days from the initial mailing of the Notice Packet to dispute any information in their Notice Packets, request exclusion from the settlement, and/or submit written objections. (Id., ¶¶ 46, 66, 67, 69.) The Response Deadline for objections or Request for Exclusion will be extended 15 calendar days for any Class Member who is re-mailed a Notice Packet by the Settlement Administrator. (Id., ¶ 46.)

Plaintiff argues that a 30-day response deadline is “warranted due to the length of time the Class has been waiting since the filing of this action and the payment structure,” asserting that “[a]dding in additional time before Defendant[’s] payment obligation[] becomes due unnecessarily prejudices Class Members [by] extending the date by which they will be paid in full.” (Mot., p. 13, fn 9.) Plaintiff further asserts that an extended notice period is not necessary because the Class is relatively small. (Ibid.)

The Court is not persuaded. Plaintiff initiated this action in February 2025 – just over a year ago – and Defendant’s payment obligations would not be impacted by a modest extension of the Response Deadline. Instead, Defendant’s payment deadlines turn on the date of preliminary approval and/or dates certain set in the Agreement. (SA, ¶ 50.) The Court prefers no less than a 45-day Response Deadline. The Parties shall be prepared to address whether they are amendable to extending the Response Deadline.[4]

“Upon the latter of the Effective Date and full funding of the [MSA] by Defendant, each Participating Class Member, fully releases and discharges the Released Parties for the Released Claims for the Class Period and be bound by Release.” (SA, ¶ 78.) The “Released Claims” means “those claims asserted in the Complaint or that reasonably could have been alleged based on the factual allegations contained in the operative Complaint or LWDA letter, including but not limited to all of the following claims for relief: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods or premium pay in lieu thereof; (4) failure to provide rest periods or premium pay in lieu thereof; (5) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; (6) failure to provide and maintain accurate records; (7) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (8) failure to timely pay wages after employment; (9) PAGA Penalties; and (10) Unlawful Business Practices.

It is the intent of the Parties that the judgment entered by the Court upon Final Approval of the Settlement shall have res judicata and/ or collateral estoppel effect and be final and binding upon Plaintiff and all Participating Class Members regarding all of the Released Claims (‘Release’), whether known or unknown, within the definition of ‘Released Claims.’ The Release will only take effect upon the latter of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003872: LEON vs DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al. 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Effective Date and full funding of the Maximum Settlement Amount by Defendant.” (Id., ¶ 40 [emphasis added].) Plaintiff is bound by the same release, but Plaintiff’s release only becomes effective upon the funding of the MSA. (Id., ¶ 79.)[5]

Separately, “[u]pon the Effective Date and full funding the MSA by Defendant, the Aggrieved Employees are deemed to fully release and discharge the Released Parties for the Released PAGA Claims for the PAGA Release Period.” (SA, ¶ 80.) The Released PAGA Claims means “the release of claims by Aggrieved Employees against Released Parties for civil penalties under PAGA asserted in the Complaint or LWDA letter, or that could have reasonably been alleged based on the factual allegations contained in the operative Complaint and PAGA Notice, excluding any claims brought in Plaintiffs individual capacity (i.e., Causes of Action 11-19 of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint) (‘PAGA Release’).

The Released PAGA Claims shall be released through the PAGA Release Period. No Aggrieved Employee may opt out of the PAGA Release and will be bound by this Settlement regardless of whether they cash their Individual PAGA Payment. The PAGA Release will only take effect upon the latter of the Effective Date and full funding of the Maximum Settlement Amount by Defendant.” (Id., ¶ 42.)

The Court notes that the inclusion of claims for PAGA penalties in the Class release is duplicative and unnecessary in light of the separate PAGA release. The Court is also skeptical of the inclusion of the phrase “whether known or unknown” in the Class release as general releases and/or section 1542 waivers are not appropriate as to absent Class Members. However, the Court will not require revisions here. The “whether known or unknown” language is effectively tempered by the “within the definition of ‘Released Claims’” language, which is appropriately limited to those claims that were alleged or could have been alleged based on the facts.

Plaintiff’s moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was reached after sufficient armslength negotiations. The Parties agreed to attend private mediation to be held on November 5, 2025 with Abe Melamed, a well-respected neutral experienced in wage and hour matters, and agreed to exchange informal discovery for use at mediation. (Siegel Decl., ¶ 16.) Defendant provided Plaintiff’s counsel with a production of data and documents, including time clock data and wage statements for all employees from September 12, 2019 through June 20, 2025; a list of all employees containing individual pay rates, and start and end dates of employment; and Defendants’ relevant policy documents. (Id., ¶ 17.)

Plaintiff’s counsel also engaged in extensive factual and legal investigation into the claims. (Id., ¶ 18.) Plaintiff’s Counsel also retained an expert to analyze all of the data provided by Defendant. (Id., ¶ 19.) On November 5, 2025, the Parties and their counsel attended an all-day mediation, where the Parties agreed to the principal terms of a class action and PAGA settlement. (Id., ¶ 21.)

Plaintiff estimated Defendant’s exposure as follows:

Claim Maximum Exposure

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003872: LEON vs DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al. 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Unpaid Wages $105,841 Unpaid Meal Period Premiums $82,364 Unpaid Rest Period Premiums $3,501,478 Reimbursement for Necessary Business Expenses $249,570 Waiting Time Penalties $551,749 Wage Statement Claim $525,450 PAGA Claim $654,100

Total: $5,670,552[6]

(Siegel Decl., ¶¶ 71-82.) Counsel adequately describes Plaintiff’s claims, Defendant’s defenses, the exposures summarized above, and the risks of continued litigation. (Id., ¶¶ 9-70.) However, in coming to a determination that this settlement is fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the Class, Counsel applied the following discounts: - A 20% discount to the value of the rounding-based wage claims to account for the possibility of losing at class certification and a further 25% discount to account for the possibility of losing on the merits; - A 20% discount to the value of the regular rate damages in paying correct premium wages and overtime, and a further 25% discount to account for the possibility of losing on the merits; - A 20% risk discount to the value of unpaid meal period premiums due to the possibility of losing at class certification, and a further 35% discount due to the possibility of losing, in part or in full, on the merits; - A 65% risk discount to the value of unpaid rest period premiums due to the possibility of losing at class certification and a further 70% discount due to the possibility of losing on the merits; - A 50% discount to certification for the reimbursement claim for the risk of being unable to show a common question of fact given that none of Defendant’s policy documents required an employee to utilize a personal cellphone and another 40% discount on the merits; - A 33% risk to the Court not awarding waiting time and/or wage statement penalties based on a failure to prevail on any of the predicate claims, and a further 75% discount to these penalties based on difficulties in establishing bad faith, intentionality, and/or willfulness; - A 75% risk to a significant reduction of PAGA penalties by the Court.

(Siegel Decl., ¶¶ 84-93.) Ultimately, Counsel determined that Defendant’s risk-adjusted, realistic maximum damage exposure was approximately $774,791.85. The MSA represents approximately 12.94% of Defendant’s maximum exposure and 94.72% of Defendant’s riskadjusted exposure.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003872: LEON vs DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al. 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Siegel Decl., ¶¶ 101-105.) Counsel attests to their belief that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Id., ¶¶ 26.) 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 an LWDA payment of $75,000, with 65% ($48,750) paid to the LWDA and 35% ($26,250) distributed to the Aggrieved Employees. (SA, ¶ 54.) The Aggrieved Employees are “those Class Members who worked for Defendant within the PAGA Period.” (Id., ¶ 14.) The PAGA Period runs from February 19, 2024 through the end date of the Release Period, which runs through November 5, 2025, or when the total workweeks worked by the Class reaches 28,500, whichever is later. (Id., ¶¶ 34, 41.) The Aggrieved Employees’ portion of the LWDA payment will be distributed on a pro rata basis. (Id., ¶¶ 28, 57.) The Aggrieved Employees are subject to a separate release and the Agreement makes clear that they cannot opt out of the PAGA portion of the settlement. (Id., ¶¶ 42, 80.)

Plaintiff estimated Defendant’s maximum PAGA exposure to be $654,100, based on 6,541 PAGA pay periods and an initial violation rate. (Siegel Decl., ¶ 81.) This estimate incorporates Counsel’s view that Plaintiff would be unable to stack PAGA penalties. (Id., ¶ 82.) However, Counsel applied a 75% risk to the Court significantly reducing any PAGA penalties awarded. (Id., ¶ 91.) The PAGA allocation represents approximately 11.54% 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: - Effective April 13, 2026, the Court has moved to Department 8B in the new Tani G. Cantil- Sakauye Courthouse located at 500 G St. Sacramento, California, 95814. Where an address and/or Department for the Court is inserted into the Notice, the Parties should use this new

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003872: LEON vs DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al. 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

information. (Notice, pp. 3, 7, 8.) The Court’s Zoom link is now: https://saccourt-ca- gov.zoomgov.com/j/16184738886. The call-in information remains unchanged. - If the Parties accept the Court’s revision regarding the Response Deadline, the Notice must be corrected accordingly. (Notice, pp. 4, 7.) - The Agreement provides that Individual Class Payments will be allocated as follows: 10% will be allocated as alleged unpaid wages, and 90% will be allocated as alleged unpaid civil penalties, and unpaid interest. (SA, ¶ 73.) The Notice must be corrected accordingly. (Notice, p. 5.)

With these revisions, the Notice is approved.

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

The Agreement provides for the payment of Class Counsel’s Fees up to one-third of the MSA ($244,625), plus the reimbursement of actual reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with Class Counsel’s litigation and settlement of the Action up to $22,000. (SA, ¶ 51.) Plaintiff argues that the requested fee award is fair as a percentage of the common fund and consistent with awards routinely awarded by courts. (Mot., pp. 22:12-23:21.)

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 Agreement provides for the payment of reasonable costs of administration of the settlement, which is capped at no more than $25,000. (SA, ¶ 53.) The Parties propose that the Court appoint CPT Group to serve as the Administrator. (Siegel Decl., ¶ 113.) CPT Group estimates its expenses will be $9,500. (Green Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. B.)

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

Class Representative Enhancement Payment

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003872: LEON vs DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al. 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

The Agreement provides for a Class Representative Enhancement Payment of up to $10,000. (SA, ¶ 52.) Plaintiff generally describes her efforts, but fails to provide an estimate of the time she spent prosecuting this action. (Leon Decl., ¶ 8.) Instead, Plaintiff attests that she is “prepared, and will provide, a detailed accounting of [her] hours spent assisting in the litigation as part of the Motion for Final Approval.” (Id., ¶ 14.)

While the Court prefers for plaintiffs to provide an accounting of their time spent at preliminary approval, the Court preliminarily approves Plaintiff’s enhancement payment, with the expectation that Plaintiff will file a declaration when moving for final approval that attests to the nature of her individual participation in this case, including a description of her specific actions and an estimate of time she committed to prosecuting the case. (See Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 804-807.)

Compliance Hearing

The Court sets a Compliance Hearing for May 22, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. No later than May 15, 2026, Plaintiff shall file (1) a declaration describing any discussions and/or agreements reached on the record at the hearing; and (2) a revised Notice and redline copy for the Court’s review.

If Plaintiff adequately addresses the Court’s concerns, the Court will sign the Proposed Order submitted with Plaintiff’s moving papers, 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 September 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 Court notes that it received a filing entitled “Compliance Chart,” which appears to walk

through the Court’s Checklist. However, neither Counsel’s declaration nor the chart contains the required attestation. [2] The Effective Date means “the date on which the Settlement embodied in this Settlement

Agreement shall become effective and is the date after all of the following events have occurred: (i) this Settlement Agreement has been executed by Plaintiff and Defendant; (ii) the Court has given Preliminary Approval to the Settlement, including approving a provisional Settlement

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003872: LEON vs DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al. 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Class; (iii) notice has been given to the putative members of the Settlement Class, providing them with an opportunity to object to the terms of the Settlement or to opt-out of the Settlement; and (iv) either (1) the Court has held a formal fairness hearing and, having heard no objections by any Class Members to the Settlement, has given Final Approval to the Settlement, including entering a final order regarding the Final Approval and the Settlement (‘Order’) and judgment certifying the Settlement Class and approving this Settlement Agreement (‘Judgment’); or (2) in the event there are oral or written objections filed by Class Members prior to or at the formal fairness hearing which are not later withdrawn or denied, the later of the following events: (a) five (5) business days after the period for filing any appeal, writ, or other appellate proceeding opposing the Court's Final Approval of the Settlement have elapsed without any appeal, writ, or other appellate proceeding having been filed; or (b) five (5) business days have elapsed following the final and conclusive dismissal or resolution of any appeal, writ, or other appellate proceeding opposing the Settlement, with no right to pursue further appellate remedies or relief.” (SA, ¶ 26.) [3] The Agreement indicates that the Aggrieved Employees’ portion of the LWDA payment is a

part of the NSA. (SA, ¶ 31.) However, elsewhere, the Agreement makes clear that the entire LWDA payment is excluded from the NSA and the Aggrieved Employees’ portion is distributed on a pro-rata basis. (Id., ¶¶ 28, 55, 57.) [4] The Agreement provides that the “Response Deadline may also be extended by express

agreement between Class Counsel and Defendant.” (SA, ¶ 46.) Accordingly, it appears that this modification could be made via Counsel’s agreement on the record, without requiring a formal revision of the Agreement. (See id., ¶ 93 [requires written instrument signed by the Parties].) [5] Pursuant to Plaintiff’s separate settlement of her individual claims, Plaintiff is subject to a

general release and section 1542 waiver. (See Mot., p. 25:2-8.) [6] Counsel’s declaration reports a maximum exposure is $5,707,215; however, that is

inconsistent with the claim exposures reported. (Siegel Decl., ¶ 83.) Counsel is expected to exercise care and diligence in preparing materials for the Court’s review.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003872: LEON vs DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al. 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

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.