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

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

Tentative Ruling

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 22 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8B OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION.***

Plaintiff Ashley Hudson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for preliminary approval of the Parties’ class action settlement is UNOPPOSED and tentatively GRANTED, subject to Plaintiff filing a revised Proposed Order for the Court’s signature.

Status Conference (Compliance Hearing) is scheduled for 05/29/2026 at 10:30 AM in Department 8B at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.

Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement is scheduled for 11/20/2026 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 a motion for 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.

The Parties are expected to carefully review the Court’s instructions and ensure that they adequately comply. Failing to address issues previously raised by the Court wastes judicial resources and imposes unnecessary burdens on the parties and the Court. In the future, counsel shall make every effort to comply with the Court’s instructions. Failure to do so may lead to sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 and/or a reduction in the requested attorney’s fees award.

Background

On May 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against 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”) 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

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

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.)

On April 7, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) consolidating the two matters, and the FAC is the operative complaint for purposes of settlement. (Serb Amended Decl., ¶ 3; Ardestani Amended Decl., ¶ 5; FAC.)

On March 20, 2026, the Court continued Plaintiff’s motion to address several issues. (3-20-26 Minute Order.) Plaintiff now moves for preliminary approval of the Parties’ Amended Joint Stipulation of Class and Representative Action Settlement and Release (“Agreement”). (Serb 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

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 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.)

Plaintiff argues that provisional certification is appropriate because (1) the Class is both sufficiently numerous, consisting of approximately 160 individuals, and ascertainable by reference to Versant’s personnel and payroll records; (2) Plaintiff is an adequate class representative, as her claims do not conflict with and are not antagonistic to the claims of other class members; (3) Plaintiff’s claims are typical given she is a member of the class and her claims arise from the same alleged employment practices and course of conduct giving rise to the claims of the other class members; (4) Plaintiff has retained experienced and adequate counsel; (5) common questions of law and fact predominate because the Class Members were all subject to the same wage and hour policies at issue in this action; and (6) a class action is superior to other means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. (Mot., pp. 9:4-10:6.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments persuasive and provisionally certifies the Class for settlement purposes for the reasons specified in Plaintiff’s moving papers.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

However, the Court notes that Plaintiff failed to address the Court’s concerns about the Class Period and whether the actual workweeks will exceed the 17,000 estimated, and, if so, whether Versant Health, Inc. would elect to increase the Maximum Settlement Amount (“MSA”) or modify the end date. (See SA, ¶ 58(h); 3-20-26 Minute Order.) Plaintiff is expected to fully address issues raised by the Court. Defendants supplemental brief explains that, assuming a May 15, 2026 preliminary approval date, the total workweeks will be 20,251. (Defendants’ Supp.

Brief, p. 3:11-12.) This is 19.12% above the estimated number and would result in a new MSA of approximately $417,500. (Id., p. 3:12-14.) Defendants expressed a willingness to increase the MSA to ensure a release that covers the entire anticipated period. (Id., p. 3:15-17.) The Court accepts Defendants’ representation and expects the Parties to confirm the triggering of the Escalator Clause and increased MSA at final approval.

Class Representative and Class Counsel

Plaintiff is preliminarily appointed as the Class Representative. (SA, ¶ 5.) Zachary M. Crosner and Jamie K. Serb of Crosner Legal, PC are preliminary appointed as Class Counsel. (Id., ¶ 31.)

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, Defendants deny liability, but Versant Health, Inc. agrees to pay a 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.)

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).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

- 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 180 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 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 60 days following the mailing of the Class Notice by the Settlement Administrator to object, opt out,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

and/or challenge. (Id., ¶¶ 1, 59, 61, 79, 84.) If a Class Notice is re-mailed, the Claims Period will be extended by an additional 14 days for the re-mailed Class Notice. (Id., ¶¶ 1, 79.)

“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, each Settlement Class Member and the Named Plaintiff shall be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released Releasees from all Released Claims.” (SA, ¶ 63; see also ¶ 91.) The “Released Claims” means “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 by reason of or in connection with any matter or fact set forth or referred to in the Complaints and/or the PAGA Letter, and any amendments thereto.

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.)

Plaintiff is also subject to a general release. (Id., ¶¶ 63, 95-98.)

“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 individually, and the State of California, the LWDA, and all PAGA Members, through Plaintiff acting as the proxy and agent for the State of California and the LWDA and as a Private Attorney General acting on behalf of all allegedly aggrieved current and former employees of Defendants, will be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released the Releasees from all Released PAGA Claims.” (SA, ¶ 64; see also ¶ 92.)

The “Released PAGA Claims” means “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 by reason of or in connection with any matter or fact set forth or referred to in the Complaints and/or the PAGA Letter, and any amendments thereto. 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 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

criminal history inquiries, unlawful PAGA waivers, and violation of Labor Code 432.6 from February 26, 2023 through the Preliminary Approval Date.” (Id., ¶ 36.)

Plaintiff’s moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was reached after sufficient investigation and arms-length negotiations. After Plaintiff filed her complaint, the Parties engaged in substantial meet and confer discussions regarding discovery, potential law and motion, and other case management issues, and ultimately agreed to attempt early mediation. (Ardestani Amended Decl., ¶ 7.) The Parties also agreed on an informal exchange of information necessary to engage in a meaningful mediation. (Ibid.)

Defendants produced payroll records, personnel policies and employee handbooks, meal break policies, personnel files, and a random sampling of paystubs and time records produced by Defendants for about 20% of the class members. (Ibid.) Defendants also provided documents and information reflecting the estimated total amount of workweeks and pay worked, and average hourly pay rates, among other data. (Ibid.) The Parties then engaged Michael Young, Esq., a highly respected mediator with extensive wage and hour class action experience and, on July 18, 2025, participated in a full day mediation with Mr.

Young. (Id., ¶ 8.) Throughout the day, the arms-length negotiations were hard-fought and adversarial as the Parties exchanged extensive information on their legal and factual positions, and made numerous offers and counter-offers, and ultimately reached agreement on all major issues. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff estimated Defendant’s exposure as follows:

Claim Maximum Exposure Discount Realistic Exposure Unpaid Wages/Off the $254,490.00 80% $50,898.00 Clock Unpaid Wages/Regular $2,250.00 50% $1,125.00 Rate Meal Break Violations $658,535.00 80% $131,707.00 Rest Break Violations $1,626,795.00 90% $162,679.50 Expense $170,000.00 80% $34,000.00 Reimbursement Wage Statement $300,000.00 80% $60,000.00 Violations Waiting Time Penalties $248,480.00 80% $49,696.00 PAGA $1,574,700.00 Approx. 92% $30,000.00 Total: $4,835,250.00 $520,105.50

(Ardestani Amended Decl., ¶¶ 24-35; Serb Amended Decl., ¶ 9.) Counsel adequately describes Plaintiff’s claims, Defendants’ defenses, the risks of continued litigation, and the bases for the above exposure analysis. (Ardestani Amended Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, 24-35.) Assuming the MSA is $417,500, the MSA represents approximately 8.63% of Defendants’ maximum exposure and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

approximately 80.27% of Defendants’ realistic exposure.

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Ardestani Amended Decl., ¶¶ 36- 41.) Counsel attests to their belief that the settlement is in the best interests of the class. (Id., ¶¶ 35.) 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 $30,000, with 75% ($22,500) paid to the LWDA and 25% ($7,500) paid to the PAGA Members on a pro rata basis. (SA, ¶¶ 58(d) and (e).) The PAGA Members are “all individuals employed by Versant as non-exempt employees in California between February 26, 2023 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 February 26, 2023 and the Preliminary Approval Date.” (Id., ¶ 30.)

As discussed above, the PAGA Members’ portion will be distributed on a pro rata basis and the PAGA Members are bound by a separate release. (Id., ¶¶ 36, 58(e), 64, 92.) The Agreement also makes clear that PAGA Members will be bound by the release of Released PAGA Claims and may not opt out of the Settlement Agreement as to the Released PAGA Claims. (Id., ¶ 62.)

Counsel evaluated Defendants’ maximum PAGA exposure to be $1,574,700, including $326,200 for Unpaid Wages; $13,000 for Underpaid Wages – Regular Rate; $254,100 for Meal Break Violations; $326,200 for Rest Break Violations; $326,200 for Expense Reimbursement; $326,200 for Wage Statement Violations; and $2,800 for Waiting Time Penalties. (Serb Amended Decl., ¶ 9.) Counsel’s estimates are based on 68 aggrieved employees and 3,262 pay periods. (Ibid.) The Agreement’s PAGA allocation represents approximately 1.91% of Defendants’ maximum exposure. If the Court assumed Plaintiff could not stack PAGA penalties, Defendant’s PAGA exposure would be $326,200, and the Agreement’s allocation would represent approximately 9.20% of Defendants’ maximum. 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

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 Parties revised the proposed Class Notice to address several concerns raised in the Court’s prior order. (Serb Amended Decl., ¶ 2; 3-20-26 Minute Order.) The revised Notice is approved.

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

The Agreement provides for the payment of attorneys’ fees up to $127,500, which is 1/3 of the MSA and actual litigation costs up to $30,000. (SA, ¶ 58(a).) Plaintiff fails to make any argument in support of the requested award, instead simply asserting that “Plaintiff’s counsel will provide the Court with appropriate summaries and evidence of its efforts and time records in anticipation of the Final Approval Hearing.” (Mot., p. 7:8-18.) Class Counsel is expected to provide an analysis at the preliminary approval stage.

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 designates Simpluris Class Action Administration (“Simpluris”) as Settlement Administrator and provides for the payment of settlement administration costs, currently estimated at $7,000. (SA, ¶¶ 41, 58(c).)

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

Class Representative Service Enhancement Award

The Agreement provides for a Service Enhancement award to Plaintiff not to exceed $10,000. (SA, ¶ 58(b).) Plaintiff describes her efforts and estimates that she spent at least 20-25 hours of her time prosecuting this action. (Hudson Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

The requested enhancement award is preliminarily approved.

Compliance Hearing

The Court sets a Compliance Hearing for May 29, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. No later than May 22, 2026, Plaintiff shall file a revised Proposed Order for the Court’s signature. As previously explained in the Court’s March 20, 2026 Minute Order, the revised Proposed Order must be consistent with the amendments to the Agreement.

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 November 20, 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 “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 8B 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008471: HUDSON vs SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement 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.

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/j/16184738886 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.