CHAVEZ vs AEGIS ENTERPRISES, INC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV092088: CHAVEZ vs AEGIS ENTERPRISES, INC. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Motion for Preliminary Approval CRS# 174734484628 in Department 18 Tentative Ruling - 06/02/2026 Patrick McKinney The Hearing on Motion for Order Motion for Preliminary Approval CRS# 174734484628 scheduled for 06/03/2026 is continued to 06/24/2026 at 01:30 PM in Department 18 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse. BACKGROUND

This is a wage-and-hour class action and PAGA representative action. Plaintiffs Eyner Morales Chavez and Antonio Hernandez have agreed to settle the claims against Defendant Aegis Enterprises, Inc. for $685,705.00. Plaintiffs seek preliminary approval of the settlement, which includes an attorney’s fee award of up to $239,996.75; reimbursement of litigation costs up to $30,000.00; an enhancement award of up to $7,500.00 for each representative plaintiff; settlement administration costs of up to $7,500.00; and $50,000.00 in PAGA civil penalties, 65% of which will go to California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and 35% will be distributed to aggrieved employees. The remaining settlement funds are to be distributed among participating class members on a pro rata basis. Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the LWDA of the settlement, and the motion is unopposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

To prevent “fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class, the settlement or dismissal of a class action requires court approval.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800.) The court “must determine the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.” (Id. at p. 1801.) “The well-recognized factors that the trial court should consider in evaluating the reasonableness of a class action settlement agreement include ‘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 stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.’” (Kullar v.

Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 128 [quoting Dunk, supra, at p. 1801].)

Similarly, a “trial court should evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA’s purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77 [noting overlap of factors in class action analysis, “including the strength of the plaintiff’s case, the risk, the stage of the proceeding, the complexity and likely duration of further litigation, and the settlement amount”].)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV092088: CHAVEZ vs AEGIS ENTERPRISES, INC. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Motion for Preliminary Approval CRS# 174734484628 in Department 18 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

Plaintiffs’ counsel investigated and obtained information, analyzing Defendant’s wage-and-hour policies, as well as a sample of Defendant’s time and payroll records. (Young Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5.) The parties then participated in an arm’s length mediation with a professional mediator and settled. (Id., ¶¶ 8–10.) Plaintiffs provide an adequate Kullar analysis, including a reasonable estimate of the number of class members, the total estimated possible recovery, and an explanation why the settlement was reasonable in light thereof. (See id., ¶¶ 12–40.)

The court gives “considerable weight to the competency and integrity of counsel and the involvement of a neutral mediator in assuring itself that a settlement agreement represents an arm’s length transaction entered without self-dealing or other potential misconduct.” (Kullar, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 129.) The terms of the settlement and notice procedures appear generally fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The scope of the PAGA release, however, must be revised before the court grants approval. A PAGA notice letter is “objective source of proof for the scope” of PAGA plaintiff’s “authorized enforcement interest.” (LaCour v. Marshalls of California, LLC (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1172, 1192–97; Accurso v. In-N-Out Burgers (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1141–1142 [“The delegation of enforcement power from the LWDA to the aggrieved employee is not open-ended. It gives the proxy control of the penalty claims identified in his written notice to the LWDA, but is limited in scope to the specific facts and theories stated in the notice.”].)

As currently drafted, the PAGA release extends to cover any and all claims “which could have been reasonably alleged based on the factual allegations in the Operative Complaint, Chavez PAGA Letter, or Hernandez PAGA Letter.” (Young Decl., Ex. A [Settlement Agreement] § 1.gg; Ex. AA [Proposed Notice] p. 4.)

The notice must include a first page summary containing (1) a headline in large font, (2) short bullet points highlighting core information, such as the nature of the lawsuit and amount of the settlement, and (3) an “options box,” or chart explaining the recipient’s rights and options— including the option to dispute the workweeks and pay periods—in plain English. The recipient’s workweeks, pay periods, and estimated class and PAGA payments should also be included on the first page. The parties are encouraged to consult https://www.fjc.gov/content/judges-classaction-notice-and-claims-process-checklist-and-plain-language-guide-0 for guidance on making notices easy to understand and for illustrative examples.

Finally, the parties should consider class demographics and, if appropriate, assess whether notice should be provided in Spanish or any other language.

SERVICE AWARD, FEES, & COSTS

The court will not rule on the awards for the representative plaintiffs, attorney’s fees, or costs until final approval but provides preliminary guidance:

Any enhancement or service award must be supported with “quantification of time and effort

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV092088: CHAVEZ vs AEGIS ENTERPRISES, INC. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Motion for Preliminary Approval CRS# 174734484628 in Department 18 expended on the litigation, and in the form of reasoned explanation of financial or other risks incurred by the named plaintiffs.” (Clark v. Am. Residential Servs. LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 807.)

This court’s benchmark for attorney’s fees is 30%. (See Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 495; Schulz v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1167, 1175; Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 557 fn 13; Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 66 fn. 11.) A court approving a settlement that includes a negotiated fee “is required to decide if the fee negotiated by the parties closely approximates the value” of the attorney’s work. (Robbins v. Alibrandi, 127 Cal.App.4th 438, 452.) Counsel must address the value of the work and provide justification for any deviation from this court’s benchmark. Ten percent of the attorney’s fee award must be held by the settlement administrator until completion of the distribution process and court approval of a final accounting.

The settlement agreement authorizes reimbursement of litigation costs. Counsel must provide evidentiary support for the actual costs incurred at the time of final approval.

The court’s preference is for Plaintiffs to move for final approval, including approval of attorney’s fees, costs, and Plaintiffs’ enhancement award, in a single motion.

ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to June 24, 2026 at 1:30 pm in Department 18. At least 5 court days before the continued hearing, Plaintiffs must submit a revised proposed order and declaration addressing the issues noted above and suggesting a date, a Wednesday at 1:30 pm, for the final approval hearing. Any revised documents should be submitted, in a searchable format, as both fully executed versions and in red line. CONTESTING THE TENTATIVE RULING: If the parties do not contest, the tentative ruling will be adopted. Any party wishing to contest must notify the court by email at Dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov and notify all opposing counsel or unrepresented parties by 4pm the day before the hearing.