Garcia v. Rustic Bakery, Inc.

and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” In his memorandum, De Arkos reasserts the same arguments that have been raised numerous times in various motions to tax costs and for attorney fees.

De Arkos asserts that he was the prevailing party in this action. He was the prevailing party on the complaint but not on his Cross- Complaint wherein he sued cross-defendant Auger. Auger was not a defendant to the complaint. As to Auger, De Arkos is not the prevailing party.

De Arkos also argues that none of the Cross-Defendants received relief from the stay in the bankruptcy case. The Bankruptcy Order pertains to The Design Build Co., LLC—not defendant Auger. Therefore, it is inapplicable to Auger’s cost recovery against De Arkos. De Arkos makes several additional arguments that have no relevancy to Auger’s recovery of costs or this motion.

A court acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) De Arkos has not demonstrated the existence of new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. The court’s minute order shall constitute the order of the court.

6. SCV-267534, Garcia v. Rustic Bakery, Inc.

(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. DANA B. SIMONDS)

IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.

18. PLEASE USE DEPT. 18’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).

This matter is on calendar for final compliance regarding distribution of funds from the settlement of this action. On June 11, 2025, this court granted Plaintiffs Jeferson Garcia, Wilson Garcia and Alicia Rueda de Lara (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Final Approval of Class and PAGA Action Settlement.

The Gross Settlement Amount to be paid under the Settlement Agreement is $4,000,000. From this amount, Class Counsel collectively sought an award of attorney fees of $1,400,000, litigation expenses of $56,847.46, Enhancement Award for each Plaintiff of $15,000.00, totaling $45,000.00, and $18,950 to Phoenix Settlement Administrators (“Phoenix”) as the Settlement Administrator.

On February 13, 2026, the Case Manager at Phoenix, Kevin Lee, filed a declaration describing the distribution of the settlement funds. He states that on June 24, 2025, Phoenix received an EIN from the IRS and opened a bank account through Banc of California. (Lee decl., ¶3.) The account was titled Garcia, et al. v. Rustic Bakery, Inc., et al., also known as the Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”). (Ibid.)

On September 9, 2025, Defendants deposited the total amount of $4,000,000.00 into the QSF. (Id., ¶4.) On November 24, 2025, Phoenix issued and mailed checks from the QSF to each Settlement Class Member (totaling $2,250,722.21), Class Counsel ($1,400,000.00 for attorneys’ fees and $56,847.46 for attorneys’ costs), Enhancement Payments for $15,000.00 each (totaling $45,000.00), Phoenix ($18,950.00) and the LWDA ($150,000.00). (Id. ¶5.)

The check-cashing period for Settlement Class Members expired on May 23, 2026, which will be one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date Individual Settlement Payment checks were issued. (Id., ¶6.) As of the date of the Lee declaration, one thousand eighty-six (1,086) checks totaling $418,123.35 remain uncashed. (Id., ¶7.)

Lee states that, pursuant to the Settlement, funds from 8 uncashed checks shall be paid to West Marin Community Services and YMCA Sonoma County, in equal shares, and Phoenix will close the QSF. (Id., ¶9.)

All disbursements were completed in compliance with the Joint Stipulation of Class and PAGA Action Settlement and Release and the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for (1) Final Approval of Class and PAGA Action Settlement and (2) For Approval of Attorney Fees and Costs and Plaintiffs’ Enhancement Award, and Judgment Thereon.

Accordingly, as the time for cashing settlement checks has passed, Phoenix is directed to remit any amount remaining in the QSF to West Marin Community Services and YMCA Sonoma County, in equal shares, and to close the QSF. Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to dismiss the action within 60 days after the remaining funds are disbursed to West Marin Community Services and YMCA Sonoma County. Plaintiffs’ counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling.

7. SCV-273003, Vega v. North Bay Concrete, Inc.

(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. DANA B. SIMONDS)

IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.

18. PLEASE USE DEPT. 18’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).

This matter is on calendar for the final report regarding distribution of settlement funds by Class Administrator ILYM Group (“ILYM”), the settlement services provider in this action. On September 8, 2025, this court signed the Amended Order and Judgment Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The Gross Settlement amount was approved in the amount of $875,000.00. This amount was to be distributed $30,000 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency; $6,550.00 for ILYM’s administrative fees; $15,000 as the Class Representative Service Payment; $218,750.00 in attorney fees; and $10,396.28 in litigation costs. The remainder is $594,303.72, including $10,000.00 for the 127 PAGA Group Members for their 24% share of PAGA penalties.

On October 8, 2025, ILYM made all the above payments, plus the additional $20,622.99 to the IRS paid by Defendant in payroll taxes, minus $54,705.44 withheld for the employees’ share of the applicable payroll taxes. (Castro decl., ¶¶3-11.)

As of July 21, 2026, 48 issued settlement checks remained uncashed. (Id., ¶13.) This totals $28,172.27. (Ibid.) On July 20, 2026, in accordance with the terms of the parties’ Settlement Agreement, the necessary paperwork and unclaimed funds were sent to the California State Controller’s Office - Unclaimed Property Fund. (Id., ¶14.)

All disbursements having now been made and the uncashed amounts having been sent to the State Controller, the final accounting is complete. Plaintiff’s counsel is to dismiss the action within 60 days of this hearing.

***

DEPT. 17 ZOOM LOGIN • Meeting ID: 161 126 4123 • Passcode: 062178 • https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1611264123 9