KELLY, et al. vs HUMASON II, INC, A NEVADA CORPORATION, et al.

23CV010746: KELLY, et al. vs HUMASON II, INC, A NEVADA CORPORATION, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

Tentative Ruling

NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED

Plaintiffs Joseph D. Kelly (“Plaintiff Kelly”), Jeremiah Kelly, and Osmar Jared Regalado Espino’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) motion for preliminary approval of class and representative action settlement is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED as follows.

However, Plaintiffs must amend the proposed Class Notice at section 8 to state that the final approval hearing will take place in Department 8A of the Sacramento Superior Court, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 before the notice is sent out.

Plaintiffs must also amend the Zoom information at section 8 to the following: Zoom Link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16108301121; Phone: (833) 568-8864; Zoom ID: 16108301121

Overview

On October 26, 2023, Plaintiff Kelly filed this wage and hour class action against Defendants Humason II, Inc. and Humason + Sons, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging ten causes of action: (1) Meal Period Liability under Labor Code § 226.7, (2) Rest-Break Liability under Labor Code § 226.7, (3) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages and Overtime Wages, (4) Failure to Pay Reporting Time Wages, (5) Failure to Comply with Labor Code § 246, (6) Violation of Labor Code § 226(a), (7) Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code § 201-203, (8) Reimbursement of Necessary Expenditures, (9) Failure to pay Wages Due, Negotiable and Payable in Cash on Demand under Labor Code §§212 and 213, and (10) Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff Kelly amended his complaint to add a cause of action for cause of action for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).

On November 11, 2024, the Parties participated in an all-day mediation with Hon. Steven Denton (Ret.), but the Parties were not able to reach a settlement. (Keledjian Decl., ¶ 9.) On October 2, 2025, the parties again met for a full day of mediation, mediated by Hon. Steven R. Denton (Ret.), following which the Parties reached a resolution. (Ibid.)

On January 13, 2026, the Court signed and filed the Parties’ joint stipulation to file a Second Amended Complaint. On January 14, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint to join Plaintiffs, Jeremiah Kelly and Osmar Jared Regalado Espino, as additional named Plaintiffs and to incorporate all of the claims alleged in the related matter, Espino, et al. v Humason II, Inc., et al. (Case No. 25CV019063) (the

23CV010746: KELLY, et al. vs HUMASON II, INC, A NEVADA CORPORATION, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

“Espino Matter”). Plaintiffs shall address in the final approval motion what further action, if any, should be taken regarding the Espino Matter, i.e., whether Plaintiffs will be filing a request for dismissal, if the Court should dismiss that matter in its ruling on the final approval, or if the Parties contend that no further action is necessary.

After filing the initial Complaint, the Parties engaged in informal and formal discovery, and exchanged information, data, and documents. (Keledjian Decl., ¶ 7.)

The Parties entered into a written settlement agreement and now move for preliminary approval of the class and representative settlement. This ruling incorporates by reference the definitions in the Agreement and all capitalized terms defined therein shall have the same meaning in this ruling as set forth in the Agreement. (Keledjian Decl., ¶ 28, Exh. 1 (“Agreement”).)

Settlement Class Certification

Plaintiffs move to certify the following settlement Class: “all persons employed by Defendants in California and classified as a non-exempt, hourly employee who worked for Defendant during the Class Period.” (Agreement, ¶ 1.5.) The “Class Period” is defined to mean October 26, 2019, through October 17, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 1.12.) The settlement Class has approximately 47 Class Members. (Id. at ¶ 4.1; Keledjian Decl., ¶ 3.) The Parties stipulated to certification for settlement purposes. (Agreement, ¶ 12.1.) The Court finds, based on the moving papers, that Plaintiffs have established the requisites for class certification. Accordingly, the Court preliminarily certifies the proposed class for settlement purposes only.

Aggrieved Employees

An Aggrieved Employee, or pursuant to the Agreement, an “Allegedly Aggrieved Employee” is defined as, “a person classified as a non-exempt, hourly employee allegedly aggrieved while working for Defendants, in California during the PAGA and/or Class Period.” (Agreement, ¶ 1.4.) The PAGA Period is defined to mean the period from October 26, 2022, through October 17, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 1.31.) There are approximately 412 Allegedly Aggrieved Employees who worked a total of 4,442 PAGA Pay Periods. (Id. at ¶ 4.1)

PAGA Members will receive their share of the PAGA Penalty regardless of whether they opt out of the settlement’s class component. (Id. at ¶ 7.5.4; Keledjian Decl., Exh. 3 (“Class Notice”) at p. 2.) Plaintiffs’ counsel gave notice of the Settlement Agreement to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”). (Keledjian Decl., ¶ 39, Exh. 8.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010746: KELLY, et al. vs HUMASON II, INC, A NEVADA CORPORATION, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

Class Representative(s)

Plaintiffs are preliminarily appointed as Class Representative for settlement purposes only. Plaintiffs have filed their respective supporting declarations generally describing their involvement in this action, including the work performed, and estimate that they spent a “substantial amount” of time. (Keledjian Decl., Exh. 5 (“Jo. Kelly Decl.”), ¶¶ 5-10; Id. at Exh. 6 (“Je. Kelly Decl.”), ¶¶ 5-10; Id. at Exh. 7 (“Espino Decl.”), ¶¶ 5-10.)

The Court finds this sufficient for preliminary approval, but Plaintiffs must submit declarations with the final approval motion that details their work performed in this case, including the approximate amount of time spent on the case. (Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 805-807.)

Class Counsel

The Court preliminarily appoints Emil Davtyan, David Yeremian, David Keledjian, David Arakelyan of D.Law, Inc. (Agreement, ¶ 1.6), as Class Counsel for settlement purposes only.

Settlement Administrator

The Court approves Apex Class Action LLC (Agreement, ¶ 1.2) as the Administrator.

Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable Settlement

The Court must find a settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable” before approving a class action settlement. (Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244- 245.) The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair, adequate, and reasonable. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) In making its fairness determination, the Court considers the strength of the Plaintiff’s case, the risk, expenses, 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 state of the proceedings, and the experience and views of counsel. (Id. at p. 1801.)

In approving a class action settlement, the Court must “satisfy itself that the class settlement is within the ‘ballpark’ of reasonableness.” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 133.)

This is a non-reversionary, opt out settlement. Defendant will pay the Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $1,025,000. (Agreement, ¶¶ 1.22, 3.1.) Defendant will separately pay the employer portion of payroll taxes owed on the wage portions of the Individual

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010746: KELLY, et al. vs HUMASON II, INC, A NEVADA CORPORATION, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

Class Payments. (Id. at ¶ 3.1.) The following will be paid out of the GSA: (1) a service payment to each of the Plaintiffs of not more than $10,000 each (total of $30,000); (2) attorneys’ fees award equaling not more than “33.3%” of the GSA (estimated to be $341,666.67) and litigation expenses payment not to exceed $30,000 to Class Counsel; (3) settlement administration costs not to exceed $15,000, absent good cause; (4) Individual Class Member payments; and (5) a PAGA Penalty of $40,000 (75% of which $30,000) will be paid to the LWDA and 25% of which ($10,000) will be paid to Aggrieved Employees.) (Id. at ¶¶ 3.1-3.2.5.1.)

The Agreement has the following Escalator Clause:

Based on their records, Defendants estimate that, as of the date of the mediation, (1) there are 1,159 Class Members who collectively worked a total of 33,093 Workweeks, and (2) 412 Aggrieved Employees who worked a total of 4,442 PAGA Pay Periods.

Should the qualifying workweeks increase beyond 10% worked by the Class Members during the aforementioned period (i.e., by more than 3,303 workweeks), Defendants shall increase the Gross Settlement Amount on a pro- rata basis equal to the percentage increase in the number of workweeks worked by the Class Members above ten percent (10%), meaning Defendants will increase the Gross Settlement Amount by the percentage amount above ten percent (10%) (e.g., if the number of workweeks increases by 11% to 36,673 workweeks, the Gross Settlement Amount will increase by one percent (1%)). (Id. at ¶ 8.)

For tax purposes, Class Member’s Individual Payments will be treated as 20% wages and 80% penalties and interest. (Agreement, ¶ 3.2.4.1.) PAGA payments will be treated as penalties. (Notice, p. 5.) Class Members have 60 days to respond to the Class Notice. (Agreement, ¶ 1.43.) For any Class Member whose Individual Class Payment check or Individual PAGA Payment check is uncashed and cancelled after the void date, the Administrator will transmit the funds represented by such checks to the California State Controller's Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Class Member. (Id. at ¶ 4.4.2.)

Disposition

The Court preliminarily finds that all relevant factors support settlement approval. (Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.) The papers demonstrate the settlement was reached after arms-length bargaining between the parties and was reached after sufficient discovery and negotiations, which allowed the Parties, and therefore, this Court, to act intelligently with respect to the settlement. Class Counsel conducted an investigation

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010746: KELLY, et al. vs HUMASON II, INC, A NEVADA CORPORATION, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

into the facts and law and issues in this case, including the exchange of informal discovery and the review of relevant information. The settlement appears to be within the “ballpark of reasonableness.” (Keledjian Decl., ¶¶ 22-70.)

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED. The Court also approves the proposed Class Notice subject to the Parties amending the final approval hearing location and Zoom information as noted at the beginning of this ruling. The Notice shall be disseminated as provided in the Agreement.

The Final Approval Hearing will take place on December 11, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 8A.

The Court will sign the Proposed Order submitted with the moving papers. The Court will insert the hearing date in Paragraph 12.

Plaintiffs must include any request for attorneys’ fees, costs, and the service award in the final approval motion, not a separately filed motion.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8a at 916-874-5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date.

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

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

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 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. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010746: KELLY, et al. vs HUMASON II, INC, A NEVADA CORPORATION, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

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) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or further notice is necessary.

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

Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement is scheduled for 12/11/2026 at 09:00 AM in Department 8A at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.