Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 10/11/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Lourdes Loera’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for final approval is UNOPPOSED and tentatively GRANTED, pending the final fairness hearing. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 382; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769.)

Status Conference (Compliance Hearing) is scheduled for 06/26/2026 at 10:30 AM in Department 22 at Gordon D. Schaber Superior Court.

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

NOTICE:

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

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to 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. 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

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

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 10/11/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Background

Plaintiff now seeks final approval of the global settlement involving the following four putative class and/or representative wage and hour actions against Defendants: (1) Anthony Bizzle v. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC, Defender, LLC, Saylor Lane Healthcare Center; Sacramento Superior Court Case Number 34-2021-00306246 (“Bizzle 1”); (2) Anthony Bizzle v. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC; Defender, LLC; Saylor Lane Healthcare Center; Sacramento Superior Court Case Number 34-2021-00308678 (“Bizzle 2”); (3) Lourdes Loera v. Spyglass LLC, et al., Sacramento Superior Court Case Number: 34- 2021-00310054 (except as it pertains to Defendants C.O.N.R., Inc.; S.L.H.C.C., Inc.; and S.H.C.C., Inc.) (“Loera”); and (4) Anthony Bizzle v. Asbury Park Nursing & Rehabilitation; Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC; Sacramento Superior Court Case Number 34 2021- 00311500 (“Bizzle 3”).

On August 16, 2021, Plaintiff Bizzle filed the Bizzle 1 action, including claims for (1) unpaid overtime; (2) unlawful meal periods; (3) unlawful rest periods; (4) unpaid minimum wages; (5) failure to pay all final wages due; (6) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (7) wage statement violations; (8) failure to maintain required payroll records; (9) unreimbursed business expenses; and (10) unlawful business practices. (Matern Decl., ¶ 7.) On September 23, 2021, Plaintiff Bizzle filed the Bizzle 2 action, a separate representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) based on the underlying Labor Code violations described in the Bizzle 1 action. (Id., ¶ 8.)

Then on November 22, 2021, Plaintiff Bizzle filed the Bizzle 3 action, which was based on the same underlying violations alleged in Bizzle 1, but against different Defendants. (Id., ¶ 9.) On July 19, 2021 and subsequently on September 17, 2021, Plaintiff Bizzle provided separate notices to the LWDA and Defendants. (St. John Decl., ¶ 5.)

Separately, on October 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a putative class and representative complaint against Defendants. (Matern Decl., ¶ 11.) The complaint alleged claims for: (1) failure to provide required meal periods; (2) failure to provide required rest periods; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay minimum wages due upon separation; (6) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses; (8) unfair and unlawful business practices; and (9) penalties under the PAGA. (Ibid.) Plaintiff submitted/sent a notice to the LWDA and Defendants in compliance with PAGA on June 25, 2021. (Id., ¶ 10; Exh. 1.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 10/11/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

On April 12, 2023, the Parties filed a First Amended Complaint in the Bizzle 1 action, which combined all parties and claims from the four underlying actions into a single pleading. (Matern Decl., ¶ 17.) The Parties expressly agreed that Plaintiff will retain the right to continue to pursue her claims in the Loera Action against Defendants C.O.N.R., Inc., S.L.H.C.C., Inc. and S.H.C.C., Inc., who are not parties to the proposed Settlement. (Ibid.)

On May 3, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval. (5-3-24 Minute Order.) Plaintiff now moves for final approval of her Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release (“Settlement Agreement” or “Agreement”) with Defendants. (Matern Decl., ¶ 22, Exh. 2 (“SA”).) Plaintiff provided a copy of the Agreement to the LWDA. (Id., ¶ 66, Exh. 3.)

Plaintiff Bizzle is not a party to the settlement. Counsel attests that they have “experienced difficulty in obtaining the signature of Plaintiff Bizzle to the [Agreement]. After numerous repeated attempts [to] conduct and to obtain the signature of Plaintiff Bizzle, including repeated calls and delivery attempts, Plaintiff Bizzle’s Counsel has been unable to obtain the signature of Plaintiff Bizzle.” (St. John Decl., ¶ 22.) Counsel further attests that Plaintiff Bizzle did not submit a request for exclusion or written objection and is, therefore, a Participating Class Member. (Id., ¶ 24.) It does not appear that Plaintiff Bizzle has alleged any individual claims outside the scope of the global settlement; however, the Parties shall confirm.

Legal Standard

Courts review class action settlements in a three-stage process: (1) an earlier conditional review by the court; (2) a period during which notice is distributed to class members for their comments or objections; and (3) a later detailed review after the notice period when the court decides whether to give “final approval.” (Rubenstein, Newberg and Rubinstein on Class Actions (6th Ed. 2023) § 13:1 (Newberg); see also Cal. R. Ct. Rule 3.769.) This procedure, which is commonly utilized by both federal and state courts, assures class members of the protection of procedural due process safeguards and enables a court to fulfill its role as the guardian of the interest of the settlement class.

As required by the applicable Rule of Court, the Court must conduct a final approval hearing to inquire into the fairness of the proposed settlement. (Cal. R. Ct., Rule 3.769(g).) The Court has broad discretion to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair. (Mallick v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 434, 438.) The law favors settlement, particularly in class actions and other complex cases where substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, cost, and rigors of formal litigation. (See Newberg, supra, § 13:44 (and cases cited therein); Class Plaintiffs v.

City of Seattle (9th Cir. 1992) 955 F.2d 1268, 1276; Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp. (9th Cir. 1976) 529 F.2d 943, 950.) 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.) In making its fairness determination, the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 10/11/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Court should consider the relevant factors, such as the strength of the plaintiffs’ 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 stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) “The most important factor is the strength of the case for plaintiffs on the merits, balanced against the amount offered in settlement.” (Kullar, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 130 [internal quotes omitted].)

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. (Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.) Ultimately, the court's determination is simply “an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough justice.” (Id., at p. 1801.)

Settlement Agreement and Class Response

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agree to pay a non-reversionary Maximum Settlement Amount (“MSA”) of $2,540,000. (SA, § 1.9.) Defendants will separately pay any applicable employer-side payroll taxes. (Id., § 1.7.) Due to financial difficulties, the MSA will be paid in three installments. (SA, § 2.1.) The sum of one-third of the MSA ($846,666.67) will be deposited with the Settlement Administrator no later than 30 days, no later than 212 days, and no later than 395 days after the Court enters an order granting final approval of the Settlement. (SA, § 2.1.) Here, the Class consists of “all persons who worked for Defendants in the State of California as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees at any time during the period from April 1, 2019 through December 27, 2022.” (Id., § 1.1.)

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA: 1. A Class Counsel Fees Payment in the amount of one-third of the MSA (or $846,666.67); 2. Reimbursement of Class Counsel’s litigation expenses of up to $30,000; 3. A Class Representative Service Payment in the amount of $10,000 to Plaintiff Loera; 4. Settlement administration costs not to exceed $30,000; 5. PAGA penalties in the amount of $150,000, which will be allocated 75% ($112,500) to the LWDA and 25% ($37,500) to the PAGA Employees.

(SA, §§ 1.23, 2.4(a)-(c).) The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) – is approximately $1,473,333.33. (Id., § 1.18.)

Individual Class Settlement Awards will be calculated by dividing the Participating Class Member’s Individual Class Workweeks by the total number of Class Member Workweeks, and multiplying the resulting number by the NSA. (SA, § 2.6(b).) Similarly, Individual PAGA Settlement Payments will be calculated by dividing each PAGA Employee’s Individual PAGA Workweeks by the total number of PAGA Workweeks for all PAGA employees, and then

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 10/11/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

multiplying the result by $37,500, or the PAGA Employees’ portion of the PAGA Penalties. (Id., § 2.6(a).) To the extent that any Individual PAGA Settlement Payment and/or Individual Class Settlement Payment Award remains uncashed after 180 days from the date of issuance, any such undeliverable or uncashed checks will become null and void and the funds associated with any such uncashed checks will be distributed to the Controller of the State of California to be held pursuant to the Unclaimed Property Law for the benefit of those Class Members who did not cash their checks. (Id., § 2.8.)

Each of the Individual Class Settlement Amount payments to Participating Class Members will be allocated as follows: 20% to satisfaction of claims for unpaid wages; 80% to the satisfaction of claims for interest and penalties. All settlement payments for wages shall be subject to required withholdings and deductions as W-2 wage payments. The Individual PAGA Settlement Payments to PAGA Employees are allocated as 100% penalties and shall also be issued through a 1099 form and not subject to withholdings or deductions. (SA, § 2.5.)

Upon the later of the Effective Date or the date upon which Defendants have completed funding the MSA, each Participating Class Member will be deemed to have released the “Released Class Claims.” (SA, § 3.5.1.) The “Released Class Claims” means “all claims, demands, rights, liabilities and causes of action of every nature and description whatsoever against the Released Parties, and any of them, that were alleged, or reasonably could have been alleged, based on the facts during the Class Period stated in the operative complaints in Bizzle Matter 1, which arose at any time during the Class Period, including but not limited to, claims for failure to pay for all hours worked (including minimum wages and overtime), failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain accurate payroll records, failure to reimburse business expenses, and all damages, interest, penalties, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other associated penalties.

The release does not extend to any claims not alleged in the operative Complaint in Bizzle Matter 1, and specifically excludes claims for workers’ compensation, personal injuries, unemployment insurance, state disability compensation, claims under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, previously vested benefits under any employer sponsored benefits plan, wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation, and harassment including but not limited to those arising under the Age Discrimination In Employment Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, and/or Federal Civil Rights Act of 1991, or any similar state or federal laws, the California Family Rights Act, the Federal Family Medical Leave Act, the California Pregnancy Leave Law, or similar state or federal laws, the Federal Equal Pay Act of 1963, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or violations of any other state or federal law, rule or regulation concerning discrimination, retaliation and/or harassment.” (Id., § 1.31.)

Similarly, upon the later of the Effective Date or the date upon which Defendants have completed funding the MSA, the PAGA Employees will be deemed to release the “Released

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 10/11/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

PAGA Claims.” (SA, § 3.5.2.) The “Released PAGA Claims” means “all claims for civil penalties under the PAGA alleged against the Released Parties in the operative complaints in the Litigation, along with all claims that could have been alleged based on the facts alleged in the operative complaints in the Litigation and the Plaintiffs’ PAGA notices to the LWDA, which arose at any time during the PAGA Period, including claims for failure to properly pay wages for all hours worked (including minimum and overtime wages), failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, failure to keep accurate payroll records, failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements.” (Id., § 1.32.)

Only Plaintiff Loera, as the Class Representative, is subject to a general release. (Id., § 3.5.3.)

Lisa Pavlik, a Case Manager for Simpluris, Inc. (“Simpluris”) attests that the Court-approved Notice was mailed to all 1,945 individuals identified in the class data via U.S. First Class Mail on June 14, 2024, after conducting a National Change of Address database search. (Pavlik Decl., ¶¶ 4-8.) A total of 347 Notices were returned, none with forwarding addresses. (Id., ¶ 9.) Simpluris performed a skip trace and re-mailed a total of 297 Notices. (Ibid.) A total of 50 Notices remain undeliverable. (Ibid.)

Simpluris has not received any requests for exclusion, objections, or workweek disputes from any Class Members. (Id., ¶¶ 12-14.) Specifically, Plaintiff Bizzle was included in the class list and did not request exclusion or object to the settlement. (Id., ¶¶ 15-16.) Therefore, Simpluris reports a total of 1,945 Participating Class Members, representing 100% of the Class. (Id., ¶ 17.) The Participating Class Members will receive an estimated average gross payment of $762.95, with the estimated highest gross payment being $4,657.07 and the lowest being $1.80. (Id., ¶ 19)

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Matern Decl., ¶¶ 51-53; St. John Decl., ¶¶ 15-20.) Having provided sufficient information regarding damage analysis at preliminary approval, the Court is inclined to find, subject to the final fairness hearing, that the Settlement is within the ballpark of reasonableness and is entitled to a presumption of fairness, and all relevant factors presently support final approval.

PAGA Payment

The Agreement provides for the payment of PAGA penalties in the amount of $150,000, which will be allocated 75% ($112,500) to the LWDA and 25% ($37,500) to the PAGA Employees. (SA, § 1.23.) The PAGA Employees are “all Class Members who worked for Defendants at any time during the period from July 19, 2020 to December 27, 2022.” (Id., § 1.22.) As discussed above, the PAGA Employees’ share will be distributed on a pro-rata basis and the PAGA Employees are subject to a separate release. (Id., §§ 1.32, 2.6(a), 3.5.2.) The Agreement makes clear that PAGA Employees cannot opt-out of the PAGA portion of the settlement. (Id., § 3.3.4.)

Simpluris reports that there are 1,543 Aggrieved Employees. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 8.) The Aggrieved

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 10/11/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Employees will receive an estimated average payment of $24.30, with the estimated highest payment being $116.21 and the lowest payment being $0.06. (Id., ¶ 21.) Having previously found Counsel’s valuation well-reasoned and persuasive at the preliminary approval stage, the PAGA Penalty is tentatively approved.

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

Courts generally recognize two methods for calculating fees in civil class actions: the lodestar/multiplier method and the percentage-of-recovery method. (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 254.) “The percentage method calculates the fee as a percentage share of a recovered common fund or the monetary value of plaintiffs’ recovery. The lodestar method, or more accurately the lodestar-multiplier method, calculates the fee ‘by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by counsel by a reasonable hourly rate.’” (Laffitte v.

Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 489.) In determining fees and costs to be awarded to Class Counsel, the Court must exercise its judicial function and make a decision on the propriety of the fees requested; it should not, and does not, abdicate its charge to make a decision simply because the parties may have reached their own agreement in this regard. The choice of a fee calculation method is generally one within the discretion of the trial court, the goal “being the award of a reasonable fee to compensate counsel for their efforts.” (Id., at p. 504.) “‘The lodestar method better accounts for the amount of work done, while the percentage of the fund method more accurately reflects the results achieved.’ Each has been championed and criticized for its respective advantages and disadvantages.” (Ibid., quoting Rawlings v.

Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc. (6th Cir. 1993) 9 F.3d 513, 516.)

The Agreement provides for a Class Counsel Fees Payment in the amount of one-third of the MSA (or $846,666.67). (SA, § 2.4(b).) Counsel attests that Matern Law Group, PC and Lawyers for Justice, PC agreed to jointly serve as class counsel in this matter, with Plaintiff Loera serving as the sole class representative. Counsel memorialized this agreement in a written fee agreement that will divide the requested fee award equally (50% to Matern Law Group and 50% to Lawyers for Justice). (Matern Decl., ¶ 46.) Plaintiff Loera was provided with the written fee agreement, and she provided written approval of said fee agreement. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff argues that the requested attorneys’ fee award is (1) reasonable because Plaintiff is the prevailing party entitled to fees; (2) appropriate as a percentage of the common-fund and consistent with awards routinely approved by California courts; and (3) supported by the significant result achieved on behalf of the Class. (Mot., pp. 22:27-27:2.) Plaintiff also argues that the requested award is supported by a lodestar cross-check. (Id., pp. 27:3-31.9.)

Counsel attests to a combined lodestar of $731,740, based on 754.3 hours worked by Lawyers for Justice, PC and Matern Law Group, PC. (St. John Decl., ¶¶ 11-12; Matern Decl., ¶¶ 43-45.) The total lodestar requires a multiplier of 1.16. (Matern Decl., ¶ 60.) The lodestar is broken down as follows:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 10/11/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Lawyers for Justice, PC Attorney Experience Rate Time Total Edwin Aiwazian 20 years $1,495 145.90 $218,120.50 Arby Aiwazian 14 years $1,295 73.60 $95,312.00 Melissa LeBlanc 12 years $850 34.80 $29,580.00 Joanna Ghosh 14 years $1,295 6.00 $7,770.00 Elizabeth M. R-H Parker-Fawley 10 years $850 45.10 $38,335.00 Brian J. St. John 9 years $850 76.90 $65,365.00 Hagit Goltzer 6 years $725 35.70 $25,882.50 Brittany Shaw 4 years $575 13.40 $7,705.00 Charles T. Sweeny 5 years $725 14.60 $10,585.00 Weslina Hung 2 years $575 5.70 $3,277.50 Kyla Buenaventura 2 years $575 35.10 $20,182.50 Total: 486.80 $522,115.00

(St. John Decl., ¶ 12.) In addition to the hourly breakdown above, Mr. St. John provides a firmlevel summary of the hours spent on various tasks, organized by category. (Id., ¶ 11, Exh. A.)

Matern Law Group, PC Attorney Experience Rate Time Total Matthew Matern 32 years $1,125 15.3 $17,212.50 Sydney Adams 6 years $675 20.6 $13,905 Sean Hardy 8 years $725 167.6 $121,510 Tagore Subramaniam 13 years $825 23.1 $19,057.50 Debra Tauger 35 years $1,050 25.5 $26,775 Julia Wells 7 years $725 15.4 $11,165 Total: 267.5 $209,625

(Matern Decl., ¶ 43.) Mr. Matern has provided a summary of the hours expended by each billing professional, including a breakdown of the tasks performed and the hours spent on those tasks. (Ibid., Exh. 5.)

Mr. St. John argues that Lawyers for Justice, PC’s hourly rates are “reasonable and commensurate with the individual backgrounds, training, and experience of the attorneys,” “commensurate with rates charged in the community by other plaintiffs-side and defense-side attorneys in this practice area.” (St. John Decl., ¶ 14.) Mr. Matern argues that Matern Law Group, PC’s hourly rates are reasonable because they have been approved by numerous courts, citing numerous cases filed in the Bay Area or Southern California, and “are also in line with the hourly rates approved in other class actions in Southern California. (Matern Decl., ¶¶ 54, 56.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 10/11/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

The Court disagrees. A reasonable hourly rate “is the product of a multiplicity of factors,” including the general market rate. (See Margolin v. Regional Planning Com. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1003-1004.) “The determination of the 'market rate' is generally based on the rates prevalent in the community where the court is located.” (Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 701; see also PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1094.) The prevailing rates in the Bay Area and/or Southern California are not the prevailing rates in Sacramento. The Court rejects the notion that the hourly rates claimed above are reasonable or appropriate in the Sacramento region.

Nevertheless, the Court is persuaded that the requested award of one-third of the common fund is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. Even if the Court reduced these hourly rates to better reflect the prevailing rates in the region (to, for example, $950 for attorneys with more than 30 years’ experience, $850 for attorneys with 20 years’ experience, $750 for attorneys with approximately 14 years’ experience, $700 for attorneys with 10-12 years’ experience, $650 for attorneys with 8-9 years’ experience, $550 for attorneys with 6-7 years’ experience, $500 for attorneys with 5 years’ experience, and $400 for attorneys with 2-4 years’ experience), the combined lodestar would be $523,070, which requires a multiplier of 1.62. Accordingly, the Court approves the requested award.

Counsel attests to incurring actual costs totaling $22,321.71, with $10,843.20 incurred by Matern Law Group, PC and $11,478.52 incurred by Lawyers for Justice, PC. (Matern Decl., ¶¶ 38-40, Exh. 4; St. John Decl., ¶ 21, Exh. B.) The Court assumes the reference to $24,523.96 in Plaintiff’s moving papers is erroneous. (See Mot., p. 11:21.) The Court finds Counsel’s actual costs reasonable and appropriate.

Settlement Administrator

Simpluris attests that its costs for services in connection with the administration of this settlement are $19,400. (Pavlik Decl., ¶ 22.) The Court finds these costs reasonable and appropriate.

Class Representative Service Payment

The Agreement provides for a Class Representative Service Payment in the amount of $10,000 to Plaintiff. (SA, § 2.4(a).) Plaintiff describes her efforts and estimates that she spent approximately 31 hours prosecuting this action. (Loera Decl., ¶ 5.) The Court finds these payments justified based on Plaintiff’s declaration and in the absence of any objections to the awards.

Disposition

In sum, and subject to the final fairness hearing, the Court tentatively concludes that the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00306246-CU-OE-GDS: Anthony Bizzie vs. Cypress Healthcare Group, LLC 10/11/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

settlement is entitled to final approval. Provided that no objection is asserted by any Class Member at the hearing on this matter, the Court will grant final approval. The Court will sign the Proposed Order and Proposed Judgment submitted with Plaintiff’s moving papers. However, because the Court does not find Counsel’s hourly rates to be reasonable or in line with the prevailing rates in the community, the Court will strike that language from paragraph 18 of the Proposed Order.

Any further Case Management Conferences and compliance hearings shall be handled by this Department. This Department shall monitor compliance with the settlement approval through and including the disbursement of any uncashed amount to the Unclaimed Property Fund.

The Court sets a Compliance Hearing for June 26, 2026, at 10:30 a.m.

At least 15 calendar days prior to the Compliance Hearing, Class Counsel shall file a declaration regarding the status of the distribution of the settlement funds. If the Court is satisfied that the settlement funds have been fully distributed, no appearance will be required.

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.