HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al.

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 03/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Ashley Hudson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for preliminary approval of the Parties’ class action settlement is UNOPPOSED but CONTINUED, as follows:

On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement scheduled for 03/20/2026 is continued to 05/15/2026 at 09:00 AM in Department 22 at Gordon D. Schaber Superior Court.

Plaintiff is expected to address the issues identified below by filing supplemental briefs and/or declarations no later than April 23, 2026. Defendants Superior Vision Services, Inc.; Vision Benefit Management, Inc.; Versant Health Holdco, Inc.; Versant Health, Inc.; Versant Health Consolidations Corp.; Versant Health Lab, LLC; Davis Vision, Inc.; and Metlife Services and Solutions, LLC (“Defendants”) may file a response no later than May 4, 2026.

The Court has provided specific direction on the information and argument the Court requires to grant a motion for preliminary and final 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.

Moving Counsel’s declarations fail to attest that they have reviewed the Court’s checklist and their briefing complies with the checklist, as required by Local Rule 2.99.05. The Court, in its discretion, has nonetheless considered Plaintiff’s motion. Counsel are admonished that any future failure to include the attestation in counsel’s declaration may result in the denial of the motion without prejudice. (Local Rule 2.99.05(C).) Failure to comply with the checklist may lead to an order to show cause regarding sanctions and/or a reduction in the requested attorneys’ fee award. (Id., 2.99.05(D).)

Background

On May 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair competition. (Ardestani Amended Decl., ¶ 5; Complaint.) On May 2, 2024, and after notice to the LWDA and Defendants and exhausting administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed a separate PAGA only representative action complaint against Defendants. (Ardestani Amended Decl., ¶¶ 2, 5, Exh. 3; Case No. 24CV008589.)

Counsel attests that Plaintiff later filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) consolidating the two matters, and the FAC is the operative complaint for purposes of settlement. (Ardestani

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 03/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Amended Decl., ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff now moves for preliminary approval of the Parties’ Joint Stipulation of Class and Representative Action Settlement and Release (“Agreement”). (Ardestani Amended Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1 (“SA”).) Plaintiff submitted the settlement to the LWDA. (Id., ¶ 2, Exh. 5.)

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 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 03/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

final fairness hearing. (Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions (6th ed. 2025) § 13:10.)

Summary of Settlement Agreement

Under the terms of the Agreement, Defendants deny liability, but Versant Health, Inc. agrees to pay a Maximum Settlement Amount (“MSA”) of $382,500 to resolve Plaintiff’s claims. (SA, ¶¶ 22, 53, 58.) Versant Health, Inc. is separately responsible for paying the employer’s share of payroll taxes. (Id., ¶ 22.) Within 14 days after the Effective Date,[1] Versant Health, Inc. will provide payment of the MSA to the Settlement Administrator to fund the QSF to be created by the Settlement Administrator, in addition to Versant Health, Inc.’s share of employer payroll taxes. (Id., ¶ 88.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks to represent the following Class: “all individuals employed by Davis Vision, Inc. or Superior Vision Services, Inc. or any other direct or indirect subsidiary of Versant Health, Inc. (collectively ‘Versant’) as non-exempt employees in California between May 1, 2020 and the Preliminary Approval Date and/or individuals who were assigned to perform services for Versant in a non-exempt role via a staffing agency in California between May 1, 2020 and the Preliminary Approval Date, excluding any individuals who previously signed releases covering the Released Claims and/or Released PAGA Claims.” (SA, ¶ 3.)

The following amounts shall be paid from the MSA: - Attorneys’ fees up to $127,500, which is 1/3 of the MSA and actual litigation costs up to $30,000. (SA, ¶ 58(a).) - A Service Enhancement award to Plaintiff not to exceed $10,000. (Id., ¶ 58(b).) - Settlement Administration Expenses in a reasonable amount, which is currently estimated at $7,000. (Id., ¶ 58(c).) - PAGA Penalties in the amount of $30,000, with 75% ($22,500) paid to the LWDA and 25% ($7,500) paid to the PAGA Members on a pro rata basis. (Id., ¶¶ 58(d) and (e).)

The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) – is approximately $178,000 and will be distributed to Class Members on a pro rata basis. (SA, ¶¶ 24, 58(f).) Individual Class Settlement Payments will be calculated as follows: the numerator shall be the number of the Class Member’s individual Covered Class Workweeks; the denominator shall be the total Covered Class Workweeks for all Class Members; this fraction shall be multiplied by the NSA. (Id., ¶ 58(f).) Within 30 days after the Effective Date, the Settlement Administrator shall distribute the settlement. (Id., ¶ 89.)

Settlement Class Members and PAGA Members will have 90 calendar days after mailing by the Settlement Administrator to cash settlement checks and will be so advised of such deadline. (Id., ¶ 90.) If such Settlement Class Members and/or PAGA Members do not cash their checks within that period, those checks will become void. (Ibid.) The uncashed amounts shall be sent to the Controller of the State of California to be held pursuant to the Unclaimed Property Law in the name of the Settlement Class Member and/or PAGA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 03/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Member to whom the uncashed check was addressed, for the benefit of those Settlement Class Members and/or PAGA Members who did not cash their checks until such time as they claim their property. (Ibid.) All Class Settlement Payments to Settlement Class Members shall be allocated as follows: 33 1/3% of each individual settlement payment as unpaid wages, which will be reported on an IRS Form W-2 with applicable withholdings; and 66 2/3% of each individual settlement payment as non-wage recovery, including interest and penalties, which will be reported on an IRS Form 1099 without withholdings. (Id., ¶ 70.) These payments will be made on two separate checks. (Ibid.) All PAGA Group Payments will be allocated entirely to statutory penalties and will be reported on an IRS Form 1099 without withholdings. (Ibid.)

Within 30 days after the Preliminary Approval Date, Versant Health, Inc. shall provide to the Settlement Administrator information in electronic format regarding all Class Members, including name(s), last known residence addresses, Social Security numbers, and dates worked for Covered Class Workweeks and Covered PAGA Pay Periods. (SA, ¶ 76.) Prior to mailing the Class Notice, the Settlement Administrator will update the addresses for the Class Members using the National Change of Address database and other available resources deemed suitable by the Settlement Administrator. (Id., ¶ 77.)

Within 30 days of receiving the Class Member data from Versant Health, Inc. and after it has completed all of the address updates for Class Members, the Settlement Administrator shall mail the Class Notice to Class Members. (Id., ¶ 78.) Any returned envelopes from the initial mailing with forwarding addresses will be used by the Settlement Administrator to locate Class Members and re-mail the Class Notice to the correct or updated address. (Id., ¶ 77.) Pursuant to the Agreement, Class Members will have 45 days following the mailing of the Class Notice by the Settlement Administrator to object, opt out, and/or challenge. (SA, ¶¶ 1, 59, 61, 79, 84.)

Issues To Be Addressed:

1. FAC: Plaintiff’s Counsel attests that Plaintiff filed an operative FAC consolidating the class and PAGA actions (Ardestani Amended Decl., ¶ 5); however, no such complaint has been filed. Plaintiff must do so now.

2. Class and PAGA Periods: The Agreement defines the Class period as the period from May 1, 2020 to the Preliminary Approval Date. (SA, ¶ 3.) Similarly, the Agreement defines the PAGA period as the period from February 26, 2023 and the Preliminary Approval Date. (Id., ¶ 30.) These dates are also incorporated into the Class and PAGA releases. (Id., ¶¶ 35-36.)

However, the mediation took place on July 18, 2025, approximately 8 months before the instant hearing date. Given the continuance, that delay will be even longer. The Parties should consider whether the actual workweeks will exceed the 17,000 estimated, and, if so, whether Versant Health, Inc. would elect to increase the MSA or modify the end date. (See SA, ¶ 58(h).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 03/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

3. Notice Period: Here, the Agreement provides for a 45-day opt-out/objection period and does not provide for an extension if any Class Notice is re-mailed. As set forth in the Court’s Checklist, the Court prefers no less than a 60-day opt-out/objection period, and the Parties must confirm that class members who receive re-mailed notices will be given an extension. The Court prefers a re-mailing extension of at least 14 days.

4. Check-cashing Deadline: The Agreement provides that “Settlement Class Members and PAGA Members will have 90 calendar days after mailing by the Settlement Administrator to cash settlement checks and will be so advised of such deadline. If such Settlement Class Members and/or PAGA Members do not cash their checks within that period, those checks will become void and a stop payment will be placed on the uncashed checks.” (SA, ¶ 90.) The Court prefers a check-cashing deadline of at least 180 days.

5. Objections: Here, the Agreement provides that “All objections must be sent no later than forty-five (45) days after the mailing of the Class Notice, and such deadline applies notwithstanding any argument regarding non-receipt of the notice. Anyone who fails to send timely written objections in this manner shall be deemed to have waived any objections and shall be foreclosed from filing any appeal from any Final Approval Order issued by the Court.” (SA, ¶ 59.) However, the Court will generally hear from any class members who attend the final approval hearing and ask to speak regarding their objections, regardless of whether they have submitted written objections in advance. (Checklist, § I “Notice to the Class” ¶ 11.)

6. Tax Allocation: The Agreement provides that the “Named Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members must pay their own portion of payroll and all applicable income taxes on the 20% of the Class Settlement Payment representing unpaid wages, and such amounts will be withheld from the individual settlement payments.” (SA, ¶ 70.) However, the Agreement allocates one-third of each Class Settlement Payment as unpaid wages.

7. Release: Generally, in cases involving both class and PAGA claims, the settlement should include separate releases for the Class Members and the Aggrieved Employees. The class release must be fairly tailored to the claims that were or reasonably could be asserted in the lawsuit based on the facts alleged in the complaint. (See Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 538-539 [“Releases must be appropriately tethered to the complaint’s factual allegations;” “[A] court cannot release claims that are outside the scope of the allegations of the complaint.”].) The PAGA release must be tethered to the PAGA claims that were or reasonably could have been alleged based on the facts alleged in the LWDA Notice. (See Id., at p. 541, fn. 5; Uribe v. Crown Building Maintenance Co. (2021) 70 Cap.App.5th 986, 1005.)

The releases currently read as follows:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 03/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

“Upon Versant Health, Inc.’s transfer of the [MSA] to the Settlement Administrator and the funding of Versant’s share of applicable employer payroll taxes owed thereon, Plaintiff and each and every Settlement Class Member, will be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Approval Order and Judgment entered by the Court will have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged each and all of the Releasees from any and all Released Claims. All Settlement Class Members shall be bound by the release, unless they formally opt-out.” (SA, ¶ 91.)

The Released Claims are defined as “any and all claims, obligations, demands, rights, causes of action, and liabilities against Releasees, whether in law or equity, that have been asserted or that could have been asserted in the Complaints and/or the PAGA Letter, and any amendments thereto, based on the facts, claims and/or allegations pled therein. Released Claims include, but are not limited to state and/or federal claims for: failure to pay minimum wage and liquidated damages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods or meal premiums, failure to provide rest periods or rest premiums, failure to timely pay wages upon separation, failure to provide reimbursement for necessary business-related expenditures, and, unfair competition in violation of the California Business & Professions Code, and/or all penalties under the California Labor Code and California’s Wage Orders, claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq. (‘FLSA’), and claims derivative of and/or related to those claims, including those under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., as amended. (‘ERISA’), from May 1, 2020 through the Preliminary Approval Date.” (Id., ¶ 35 [emphasis added].)

Similarly, “[u]pon Versant Health, Inc.’s transfer of the [MSA] to the Settlement Administrator and the funding of Versant’s share of applicable employer payroll taxes owed thereon, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of the LWDA and each and every PAGA Member, will be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Approval Order and Judgment entered by the Court will have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged each and all of the Releasees from any and all Released PAGA Claims.

All PAGA Members shall be bound by the release as to any Released PAGA claims even if they have formally opted out of the Settlement Class.” (SA, ¶ 92.) The Released PAGA Claims are “any and all claims, obligations, demands, rights, causes of action, and liabilities against Releasees, under PAGA that have been asserted or that could have been asserted in the PAGA Action Complaint and/or the PAGA Letter, and any amendments thereto; or that could have been asserted in the Complaint and/or the PAGA Letter, and any amendments thereto, based on the facts, claims and/or allegations pled therein.

Released PAGA Claims include, but are not limited to, claims for failure to pay minimum wage and pay for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay meal and rest break premiums, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to timely pay wages upon separation, failure to provide reimbursement for necessary business-related expenditures, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to provide suitable resting facilities, unlawful deductions, failure to provide reporting time pay, day of rest violations, sick leave violations, failure to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 03/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

provide suitable seating (Sections 14(A) and (B)), failure to pay vested vacation/paid time off, violation of Labor Code 208, and the use of unlawful agreements, including unlawful criminal history inquiries, unlawful PAGA waivers, and violation of Labor Code 432.6 from February 26, 2023 through the Preliminary Approval Date.” (Id., ¶ 36 [emphasis added].)

The Court is concerned that the phrase “based on the facts, claims and/or allegations pled therein” as used in the definitions fails to comport with Amaro. The Court recommends that this language be revised to state “based on the facts alleged therein.”

8. Exposure Analysis: Plaintiff’s Counsel asserts that “the allegedly aggrieved employees theoretically are entitled about $1.5 million in civil penalties should Plaintiff prevail on all claims and establish violations of the multiple Labor Code sections at issue for every single pay period.” (Ardestani Amended Decl., ¶ 33.) However, Counsel fails to provide any explanation for how that figure was calculated. Counsel fails to even state how many PAGA pay periods are at issue.

9. 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 following issues must be addressed in the Notice: - The Notice includes the following language: “The Parties agree that in light of the risks and expenses associated with continued litigation, this Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and that it is in the best interest of the Class and PAGA Members.” (Ardestani Amended Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 2 (“Notice”), p. 3.) The Court finds this language is unnecessary and may improperly discourage class members from objecting to the settlement. Accordingly, it must be removed. - If the Parties revise the Class and PAGA releases, the Notice should be revised accordingly. (Id., p. 5.) - If the Parties revise the check-cashing deadline, the Notice should be revised accordingly. (Id., p. 6.) - 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/my/sscdept22; To join by phone: (833) 568-8864 / ID: 16184738886. - Finally, in April 2026, the Court will move to the new Tani G.

Cantil-Sakauye Sacramento

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 03/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Superior Courthouse located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, California, 95814. The Final Approval Hearing will be heard in Department 8B. The Notice should be updated accordingly.

10. Proposed Order: Plaintiff shall separately file a revised Proposed Order, consistent with the discussion above.

***

Plaintiff is advised to review her entire motion and make any other necessary changes to fully comply with the Court’s Checklist.

If the Parties amend the Agreement to address any of the Court’s concerns, the Parties shall file proof of the Agreement’s amendment and submission of the amended Agreement to the LWDA.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

[1] The “Effective Date” means “that date on which the settlement embodied in this Settlement

Agreement shall become effective after all of the following events have occurred: (i) Final Approval of the Settlement is granted by the Court; and (ii) the Court’s order approving the Settlement Agreement becomes a Final Judgment.” (SA, ¶ 14.) “Final Judgment” means “the latest of: (a) the date of final affirmance on an appeal of the Final Approval Order and Judgment; (b) the date of final dismissal with prejudice of the last pending appeal from the Final Approval Order and Judgment; or (c) if no appeal is filed, the expiration date of the time for the filing or noticing of any form of valid appeal from the Final Approval Order.” (Id., ¶ 18.)

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 22 at (916) 874-5762 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.)

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 03/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

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.

If oral argument is requested, the Parties are encouraged to appear via Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept22 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16184738886

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.