Fitwi vs. MK Phoenix Airport LLC

4. An enhancement of $5,000 to Plaintiff. In making this award, the Court has considered only the factors set forth in Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251 and Clark v. Am. Residential Servs. LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785.

5. Payment to the LWDA of $7,500, per the parties’ PAGA allocation.

Pursuant to section 384(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff shall submit to the Court a final report on or before February 28, 2027 setting forth the actual amounts paid to class members and other amounts disbursed pursuant to the settlement. Upon receiving the report, the Court will determine whether further reports and/or a hearing will be necessary.

Please submit a revised proposed order for the Court’s signature that conforms to the foregoing.

6 Her vs. Avon Protection Systems, Inc.

2024-01392475

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing filed in response to the previous minute order. The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is GRANTED. The motion for final approval shall be heard on December 18, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CX101. Moving papers are due 16 court days before the hearing. Please submit a revised proposed order that conforms to the foregoing, includes the date of the final approval hearing, and updates all dates that are calculated in reference to the date preliminary approval is granted. 7 Gallegos vs. MAPS SERVICES INC., a California corporation;

2021-01216978

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Approving Paga Settlement CONTINUED TO 8/14/2026 8 Fitwi vs. MK Phoenix Airport LLC

2025-01504819

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories Plaintiff Ahmed Fitwi’s unopposed motion to compel responses to his first set of special interrogatories issued to Defendant MK Phoenix Airport LLC is GRANTED as set forth below.

I. Compelling Responses

On February 10, 2026, Plaintiff served a single special interrogatory on Defendant, seeking the identity and contact information of the putative class members. (ROA 48, Ex. A.) As of the date this motion was filed, no response had been provided. (ROA 48, ¶ 6.) As a result, any potential objections are waived by operation of law, and Defendant is ordered to provide a response.

However, the information at issue implicates the privacy interests of

Defendant’s employees. Regardless of whether Defendant has waived its own objections to the discovery, the Court still has an obligation to consider the non-party employees’ privacy. To that end, the parties are ordered to complete a Belaire-West process, and Defendant is to provide its response within 30 days of completion. In the interests of justice, and given Defendant’s complete failure to provide discovery responses, Defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the Belaire-West process.

II. Sanctions

Plaintiff requests a total of $3,585 in fees and costs from Defendant. The request is granted in part. Defendant failed to submit to an authorized method of discovery without justification, so sanctions are required. However, the Court finds the fees claimed by Plaintiff excessive for unopposed form motions to compel absent responses (as opposed to a contested, more tailored motion to compel further responses). The Court finds a total of $3,000 to be appropriate. Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff this amount as a sanction by no later than August 24, 2026.

9 Alvarez vs. Albertson’s LLC

2025-01486816

Defendant’s Motion for Order to Stay Proceedings

Defendant Albertson’s LLC moves to stay this case pending resolution of Alvarez v. Albertson’s LLC, C.D.Cal. No. 8:25-cv-00982-SRM-KES (the “Class Action”). The motion is GRANTED. In light of the stay, a status conference will be held on December 21, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. A joint status report shall be filed by December 14, 2026. Defendant’s unopposed request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

GROUNDS FOR RULING

I.

Background

This is a PAGA-only action involving the non-exempt distribution, fulfillment, and warehouse center employees of Defendant. On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Class Action in Orange County Superior Court, where it was assigned case number 25-01471926 and assigned to Judge Melzer in Department CX102. (RJN Ex. 1.) Plaintiff then filed this separate PAGA action on May 30, 2025. (ROA 2.) Plaintiff is represented by the same counsel in both cases. Although this case and the Class Action arise from common underlying facts, Plaintiff failed to file a notice of related cases in this matter as required by CRC 3.300.

Defendant removed both the Class Action and this case to federal court. (RJN Ex. 2; ROA 17.) In federal court, Plaintiff moved to remand this case, while Defendant moved to consolidate it with the Class Action. The federal court granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand and dismissed Defendant’s motion to consolidate as moot. (ROA 22.)

From the Court’s review of the two complaints, every Labor Code section cited as a PAGA predicate in this action is alleged in the Class Action. Plaintiff