MICHAEL PAYNE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

24CV008383: MICHAEL PAYNE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Michael Payne and Brooke Sommerdorf (“Plaintiffs”) motion for preliminary approval for the Parties’ class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) settlement is UNOPPOSED and tentatively GRANTED, subject to the supplemental declarations and revised Notice and Share Form requested below.

Moving counsel’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise them of Local Rule 1.06, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing.

Status Conference (Compliance Hearing) is scheduled for 08/07/2026 at 10:30 AM in Department 8B at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.

Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement is scheduled for 01/08/2027 at 9:00 AM in Department 8B at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.

The Court has provided specific direction on the information and argument the Court requires to grant 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.

Moving Counsel’s declaration fails to attest that they have reviewed the Court’s checklist and their briefing complies with the checklist, as required by Local Rule 2.99.05. The Court, in its discretion, has nonetheless considered Plaintiffs’ motion. Counsel is admonished that any future failure to include the attestation in counsel’s declaration may result in the denial of the motion without prejudice. (Local Rule 2.99.05(C).) Failure to comply with the checklist may lead to an order to show cause regarding sanctions and/or a reduction in the requested attorneys’ fee award. (Id., 2.99.05(D).)

Background

On or about April 26, 2024, Plaintiff Payne submitted a letter to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) to notify the LWDA of Plaintiff Payne’s intent to seek civil penalties against Defendant Reach Air Medical Services, LLC. (Smith Decl., ¶ 22, Exh. B.) On April 29, 2024, Plaintiff Payne filed his initial class action complaint alleging causes

24CV008383: MICHAEL PAYNE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

of action for: (1) failure to pay all minimum wages, (2) failure to pay all overtime wages, (3) failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums, (4) failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums, (5) failure to maintain accurate employment records, (6) failure to pay wages timely during employment, (7) failure to pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation, (8) failure to indemnify all necessary business expenditures, (9) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and (10) violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. (Id., ¶ 23.) On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff Payne filed a first amended complaint alleging causes of action against Defendant Reach Air Medical Services, LLC, removing his causes of action for meal and rest period violations, and adding one cause of action for penalties based on the foregoing pursuant to PAGA. (Id., ¶ 26.)

On May 10, 2024, Plaintiff Sommerdorf separately filed a PAGA letter with the LWDA against Defendants Reach Air Medical Services, LLC, Reach Medical Holdings, LLC, and Calstar Air Medical Services LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging largely identical claims to those alleged by Plaintiff Payne, with the addition of allegations concerning sick pay violations. (Smith Decl., ¶ 24, Exh. C.) On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff Sommerdorf filed her initial class action complaint (Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 24CV010355 (the “Sommerdorf Action”)), wherein she alleged causes of action against Defendants for: (1) failure to pay all minimum wages, (2) failure to pay all overtime wages, (3) failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums, (4) failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums, (5) failure to pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation, (6) failure to pay wages timely during employment, (7) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, (8) violation of California Labor Code sections 223 and 224, (9) failure to maintain accurate employment records, and (10) violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. (Id., ¶ 25.)

On September 12, 2024, Plaintiff Sommerdorf filed a first amended complaint alleging causes of action against Defendants for those described in the original complaint and adding one cause of action for penalties based on the foregoing pursuant to PAGA. (Id., ¶ 27.)

On or about December 6, 2024, Defendants filed a Notice of Related Cases identifying the following matters: (1) Payne v. REACH Air Medical Services, LLC (Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 24CV008383); (2) Sommerdorf v. REACH Holdings, LLC, et al. (Sacramento Cnty. Sup. Ct., No. 24CV010355) (3) Reni, et al. v. REACH Medical Holdings, LLC, et al. (Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG20072101); and (4) Mason v. REACH Air Medical Services, LLC (Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2021-00308894). (Smith Decl., ¶ 28.) Counsel attests that the Mason action was dismissed with prejudice on November 29, 2023, and that the Reni action was resolved through a settlement that received final approval on September 21, 2023. (Ibid.)

On June 23, 2026, the Court granted the Parties’ joint stipulation and consolidated the Payne and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008383: MICHAEL PAYNE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

Sommerdorf Actions for the purposes of settlement approval. (6-23-26 Stipulation and Order.)

Plaintiffs now seek preliminary approval of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement and Release of Class and PAGA Actions (“Agreement”). (Smith Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A (“SA”).) Plaintiffs provided a copy of the Agreement to the LWDA. (Id., ¶ 75, Exh. E.)

Legal Standard

The law favors the settlement of lawsuits, particularly in class actions and other complex cases where substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, expense, and rigors of formal litigation. (See Neary v. Regents of Univ. of Cal (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273, 277-281; Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 19, 52.) However, a class action may not be dismissed, compromised, or settled without approval of the court, and the decision to approve or reject a proposed settlement is committed to the court’s sound discretion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769; Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234-35 (Wershba).)

In determining whether to approve a class settlement, the court’s responsibility is to “prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class” through settlement because the rights of the class members, including the named plaintiffs, “may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties.” (Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Kintetsu Enters. of Am. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 46, 60.) The court must independently determine “whether the settlement is in the best interests of those whose claims will be extinguished” and “make an independent assessment of the reasonableness of the terms to which the parties have agreed.” (Kullar v.

Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 130, 133.) The burden of establishing the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement is on the proponent. (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 245; see also 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135 1165-66.)

The Court does not rubber stamp these motions, but rather serves as a guardian of absent class members’ rights to ensure the settlement is fair. (Luckey v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 81, 95.) “Ultimately, the [trial] court’s determination is nothing more than ‘an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough justice.’” (7-Eleven, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 1145.) “A settlement need not obtain 100 percent of the damages sought in order to be fair and reasonable. Compromise is inherent and necessary in the settlement process.

Thus, even if ‘the relief afforded by the proposed settlement is substantially narrower than it would be if the suits were to be successfully litigated,’ this is no bar to a class settlement because ‘the public interest may indeed be served by a voluntary settlement in which each side gives ground in the interest of avoiding litigation.’” (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 250,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008383: MICHAEL PAYNE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

citations omitted.) The court’s primary objective for preliminary approval is to establish whether to direct notice of the proposed settlement to the class, invite the class’s reaction, and schedule a final fairness hearing. (Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions (6th ed. 2025) § 13:10.)

Provisional Class Certification

If the class has not yet been certified, part of the motion for preliminary approval will include a request for provisional certification for purposes of settlement only. (See Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 3.769.) Although the provisional process is less demanding than a traditional motion for class certification, a trial court reviewing an application for preliminary approval of a settlement must still find that the normal class prerequisites have been met. (See Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625-627 (1997); in accord, Carter v. City of Los Angeles (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 808, 826.)

Here, Plaintiffs seek provisional certification of the following classes: (1) Flight Crew Settlement Sub-Class: All persons employed by Defendants in California as non-exempt Pilots, Paramedics, and Nurses during the period from May 5, 2023 through August 8, 2025; and (2) Non-Flight Crew Settlement Sub-Class: All persons employed by Defendants in California as non-exempt employees during the period from May 24, 2020 through August 8, 2025. (SA, ¶ 1.41.)

Plaintiffs argue that provisional certification is appropriate because (1) the proposed Class of approximately 1,000 is sufficiently numerous and ascertainable through Defendants’ records; (2) common legal and factual questions exist arising from Defendants’ policies and practices; (3) Plaintiffs’ claims are typical because they were subject to the same alleged policies and practices; (4) Plaintiffs are adequate representatives because as Class Members they experienced the same alleged wage and hour practices as the rest of the Class, are committed to representing the interests of the Class, have no interests adverse to the Class, accept their duty to represent the best interests of the Class, and retained experienced counsel; and (5) a class settlement is superior to litigation of numerous individual claims. (Mot., pp. 15:15-17:27.) The Court finds Plaintiffs’ arguments persuasive and provisionally certifies the Class for settlement purposes for the reasons specified in Plaintiffs’ moving papers.

Class Representative and Class Counsel

Plaintiffs are preliminarily appointed as Class Representatives. (SA, ¶ 1.11.) Jonathan Melmed, Kyle D. Smith, and Jaqueline Antillon of Melmed Law Group P.C. and Robert W. Ottinger of The Ottinger Firm, P.C. are preliminarily appointed as Class Counsel. (Id., ¶ 1.6.)

Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable Settlement

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008383: MICHAEL PAYNE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

Before approving a class action settlement, the Court must find that the settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) The Court considers such factors as “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 the stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement.” (Ibid.) “[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.” (Id., at p. 1802.)

Under the terms of the Agreement, Defendants deny liability, but agrees to pay a Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $2,000,000 to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims. (SA, ¶¶ 1.21, 5.1, 13.4.) Defendants shall separately pay Defendants’ share of payroll taxes. (Id., ¶¶ 1.19, 1.21.) There will be no reversion to Defendants. (Id., ¶ 5.1.) Defendants shall deposit the GSA in a lump sum payment plus the employer-side payroll taxes to the Administrator within 21 days of the Effective Date.[1] (Id., ¶ 6.2.)

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA: - Service awards in an amount up to $10,000 to each Plaintiff. (SA, ¶ 5.2.) - An award of Class Attorney Fees and Expenses with the fee portion not to exceed one- third of the GSA (i.e., $666,666.67) and the award of costs and expenses up to an additional $40,000. (Id., ¶ 5.7.) - Settlement administration costs, which are not expected to exceed $25,000. (Id., ¶ 6.1.) - A PAGA payment in the amount of $150,000, with 75% ($112,500) allocated to the LWDA and 25% ($37,500) allocated to the PAGA Settlement Class. (Id., ¶ 5.4.)

The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) – is approximately $1,248,333.33 and will be distributed to the Class Participants.[2] (SA, ¶¶ 1.25, 8.2.) Each Class Participant shall be eligible to receive payment of an Individual Settlement Amount, which is a share of the NSA based on the pro rata number of weeks worked by the Class Members during the Class Period as a proportion of all weeks worked by all Class Members. (Id., ¶¶ 1.24, 5.3, 8.2.) Similarly, the PAGA Settlement Class portion of the PAGA Penalties will be distributed on a pro rata basis. (Id., ¶¶ 5.4, 8.3.)

The Administrator shall distribute the settlement no later than 28 days after the Effective Date. (Id., ¶¶ 8.5-8.7.) For tax purposes, the Parties agree that 20% of each Individual Settlement Amount shall constitute payment in the form of wages (for which an IRS Form W-2 will be issued) and 80% shall constitute penalties and interest (for which an IRS Form 1099 will be issued). (Id., ¶ 5.5.) The Administrator shall issue an IRS Form 1099 to members of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008383: MICHAEL PAYNE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

PAGA Settlement Class reflecting their PAGA payments. (Ibid.) Any funds associated with checks that have not been cashed within 180 days will become void and the Individual Settlement Amount associated with the uncashed check will be remitted to the Unclaimed Property Fund. (Id., ¶ 8.8.)

Within 14 days after the preliminary approval date, Defendants shall provide the Administrator with an updated list of Class Members and members of the PAGA Settlement Class. (SA, ¶ 7.2.) Within 28 days following the Preliminary Approval Date, the Settlement Administrator shall populate the data for each Class Member accordingly, and send each Class Member the Class Notice via first-class, United States mail. (Ibid.) Class Members will have 45 days after being mailed the Notice to dispute their workweeks, opt out of the settlement, or object to the Settlement (the “Response Deadline”). (Id., ¶¶ 1.39, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4.)

If prior to the Response Deadline, any Class Notice mailed to a Class Member is returned as having been undelivered by the United States Postal Service, the Administrator shall perform a skip trace search and seek an address correction for such Class Members, and a second Notice will be sent to any new or different address obtained. (Id., ¶ 7.3.) Such Class Members shall have an additional 14 days from the date of the Mailing of the second Notice to opt out, object, or dispute the information provided in the Share Form if the Response Deadline would have otherwise passed prior to 14 days from the date of the mailing of the second Notice. (Ibid.)

If the Administrator determines that an opt out request returned by a Class Member before the Response Deadline is deficient, or if a Class Member submits both a dispute and an opt out request, then the Administrator shall mail a deficiency letter to that Class Member identifying the problem. (Ibid.) If the Class Member fails to cure the deficiency, any inconsistent opt out request shall be disregarded and the claim will be paid, and the Class Member will become bound by the judgment. (Ibid.)

“Upon the Effective Date, the Releasing Parties shall be deemed to each release the Released Parties from any and all Released Clams arising during the Class Period. It is the desire of the Parties and the Releasing Parties to fully, finally, and forever settle, compromise, and discharge the Released Claims. Each of the Releasing Parties, including each Class Participant, will be bound by the release of Released Claims as a result of the Class Settlement and to the terms of the final judgment and the satisfaction of such judgment.” (SA, ¶ 11.1.)

Separately, “[e]ach member of the PAGA Group, shall waive, fully release and forever discharge the Released Parties from any claims for civil penalties under PAGA to the extent those penalties related to the Released Claims and arose during or before the end of the PAGA Period.” (Id., ¶ 11.2.) The “Released Claims” “shall mean and include any and all claims, rights, demands, liabilities, and causes of action of any kind arising from the alleged violation of any California and/or federal law that occurred during the Class Period that were pled in the Notices submitted by either Plaintiff to the [LWDA], or in the operative complaints filed in either Action, or that could have been brought based on the factual allegations stated therein, including but not limited to claims

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008383: MICHAEL PAYNE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

brought under California Labor Code §§ 200, 201-203, 204, 205.5, 210, 216, 218, 218.5, 218.6, 221, 223, 224, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 233, 234, 246, 246.5, 400-410, 450, 510, 512, 551, 552, 558, 558.1, 1174, 1174.5, 1185, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, 1199, 2800, 2802, 2804, California Code of Regulations Title 8, the applicable sections of the relevant Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders; California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; and any damages, penalties, restitution, disgorgement, interest, costs, or attorneys’ fees as a result thereof.” (Id., ¶ 1.36.)

Plaintiffs moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was reached after sufficient investigation and arm’s length negotiations. Prior to mediation, Plaintiffs’ Counsel conducted significant informal discovery, including numerous telephonic conferences with Plaintiffs; inspection and analysis of thousands of pages of documents; analysis of work-related data from a sample of Class Members and Aggrieved Employees; an analysis of the legal positions taken by Defendants; investigation into the viability of class treatment of the claims asserted in the action; analysis of potential class-wide damages, including information sufficient to understand Defendants’ potential defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims; research of the applicable law with respect to the claims asserted in the operative complaints and the potential defenses thereto; and assembling and analyzing of data for calculating damages. (Smith Decl., ¶ 30.)

Defendants also produced a sample of wage statements and time and pay records, from which Plaintiffs, with the help of their expert, were able to craft a damages model. (Id., ¶ 31.) On May 20, 2025, the Parties participated in a full-day mediation with Louis Marlin, who is a full-time mediator with extensive experience in California wage and hour class action lawsuits. (Id., ¶ 32.) The negotiations were contentious, but the Parties reached a collective agreement to resolve the Payne and Sommerdorf Actions. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs estimated Defendants’ exposure as follows:

Claim Maximum Exposure Discount Realistic Exposure Off-the-Clock Work $5,352,873.75 90% $535,287.38 Meal and Rest Break $20,093,730.00 97.5%[3] $502,343.24 Claims Waiting Time Penalties $3,655,497.60 90% $365,549.76 Wage Statement Violations $2,867,150.00 75% $716,787.50 PAGA Penalties $2,652,600.00 90% $265,260.00

Total: $34,621,851.35 $2,385,227.88

(Smith Decl., ¶¶ 36-53.) Counsel’s exposure analysis does not value Plaintiffs’ failure to reimburse business expenses claims. The Court assumes Counsel entirely discounted this claim.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008383: MICHAEL PAYNE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

Counsel is expected to provide a complete analysis. Counsel adequately describe Plaintiffs’ claims, the defenses, above exposures, and the risks of continued litigation. (Id., ¶¶ 34-52, 67-68, 70.) The GSA represents approximately 5.78% of Defendants’ maximum exposure and 83.85% of Defendants’ realistic exposure. (Id., ¶ 53.)

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Smith Decl., ¶¶ 8-14, 16.) Counsel attests to their belief that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Id., ¶¶ 17, 66.) Based on the foregoing, the Court preliminarily finds, subject to the final fairness hearing, that the Settlement is within the ballpark of reasonableness and that all relevant factors support preliminary approval.

PAGA Payment

The Agreement provides for a PAGA payment in the amount of $150,000, with 75% ($112,500) allocated to the LWDA and 25% ($37,500) allocated to the PAGA Settlement Class. (SA, ¶ 5.4.) The PAGA Settlement Class means all persons employed by Defendants in California as nonexempt employees during the PAGA Period. (Id., ¶ 1.30.) The PAGA Period means the period from April 27, 2023, through August 8, 2025. (Id., ¶ 1.29.) Each member of the PAGA Settlement Class shall be entitled to receive a portion of the PAGA Payment. (Id., ¶ 5.4.)

The portion of the PAGA Payment allocated to the PAGA Settlement Class shall be distributed to the PAGA Settlement Class based on the pro rata number of pay periods worked by each particular PAGA Settlement Class member during the PAGA Period as a proportion of all pay periods worked by all members of the PAGA Settlement Class. (Ibid.) The PAGA Settlement Class is subject to a separate release. (Id., ¶ 11.2.) The Agreement makes clear that Class Members who are also members of the PAGA Settlement Class cannot opt out of the PAGA portion of the settlement. (Id., ¶ 7.3.)

As summarized above, Plaintiffs estimated Defendants’ PAGA exposure to be $2,652,600, based on 26,526 pay periods and an initial penalty of $100. (Smith Decl., ¶ 52.) In estimating Defendants’ exposure, Plaintiffs considered that courts have refused to “stack” penalties and the likelihood that the Court would reduce any penalties awarded. (Id., ¶ 51.) To estimate a realistic exposure, Counsel used a $10-per-pay period penalty. (Id., ¶ 52.) The Court finds the PAGA allocation reasonable under the circumstances and is entitled to a presumption of fairness and it is preliminarily approved.

Proposed Class Notice

The notice to Class Members must fairly apprise the prospective members of the terms of the settlement without expressing an opinion on the merits of the settlement. (7-Eleven Owners for

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008383: MICHAEL PAYNE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1164; see also Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769.) “Whether a claimant would want to accept or reject the proposed settlement is a decision to be made by him independently and without influence or pressure from those competing parties who either favor or oppose the settlement.” (Phila. Hous. Auth. v. Am. Radiator & Std. Sanitary Corp. (E.D. Pa. 1970) 323 F.Supp. 364, 378.)

The Notice and Share Form fairly describe the settlement. (SA, Exh. 1 (“Notice”), Exh. 2 (“Share Form”).) However, the following issues must be addressed: - The Notice includes the following language: “To avoid the additional expense, inconvenience, and risk of continued litigation, however, Plaintiffs and Defendants (the 'Parties') have concluded that it is in their respective best interests and the interests of the Class Members to settle the Action on the terms summarized in this notice. The Settlement was reached after Defendants provided extensive information and documents to Plaintiffs' counsel, and after lengthy arms-length non-collusive negotiations between the Parties, including mediation with an experienced and well-respected mediator in California.

In these negotiations, both sides recognized the substantial risk of the Court deciding against them at trial and determined that the Settlement was a fair, reasonable, and adequate way to resolve the disputed claims.” (Notice, p. 2.) The Court finds this language is unnecessary and may improperly discourage class members from objecting to the settlement. Accordingly, it must be revised to avoid any commentary on whether the settlement is in the best interests of the Class or whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate. - The Notice indicates that “Defendants, or their proxies, shall take all usual and customary deductions from the Individual Settlement Amount payments that are distributed as wages, including, but not limited to, state and federal tax withholding, disability premiums, and unemployment insurance premiums.” (Notice, p. 3.)

However, the Agreement makes clear that Defendants will “have no involvement in or responsibility for the determination or payment of Employee’s Taxes and Required Withholding.” (SA, ¶ 8.2) That task is reserved for the Administrator. (Ibid.) The Notice must be revised accordingly. - The Notice should summarize the Class and PAGA release using the language in the Agreement. (Notice, p. 4.) - The Notice should not suggest that a Class Member must use specific language to opt out of the settlement. (Notice, p. 5; see SA, ¶ 7.3.) - The Notice should inform the Class Members of the Final Approval Hearing.

It should also inform Participating Class Members that if they desire to appear remotely at the final approval hearing, they can join via the Department’s Zoom link or phone number and provide the following access information for the appropriate Department in the Notice: To join by Zoom link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16184738886; To join by phone: (833) 568-8864 / ID: 16184738886. - The Share Form should separately summarize the workweeks during the Class Period, the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008383: MICHAEL PAYNE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

estimated Individual Settlement Amount, the pay periods during the PAGA Period, and the individual payment for each member of the PAGA Settlement Class. (Share Form, p. 1.)

With these revisions, the Notice and Share Form are approved.

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

The Agreement provides for an award of Class Attorney Fees and Expenses with the fee portion not to exceed one-third of the GSA (i.e., $666,666.67) and the award of costs and expenses up to an additional $40,000. (SA, ¶ 5.7.) Plaintiffs argue that the fee allocation is fair as a percentage of the common fund. (Mot., pp. 19:22-20:7.)

The requested award is preliminarily approved. In moving for final approval, the Court expects Counsel to support their arguments with respect to this amount, including by providing information necessary to perform a lodestar analysis. (See In re Activision Sec. Litigation (N.D. Cal. 1989) 723 F.Supp. 1373, 1379; Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 557- 58 & fn. 13.; Martin v. Ameripride Servs. (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2011), 2011 WL 2313604 at *22 (collecting cases); Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc. (E.D. Cal 2010) 266 F.R.D. 482, 491 (same); see also Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 66 & n.11.)

Counsel does not address how the requested fee award will be divided between Counsels’ firms. Counsel must provide information regarding the fee-splitting agreement and whether Plaintiffs have given written approval of Counsels’ fee-splitting agreement. (Mark v. Spencer (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 219, RPC Rule 1.5.1; CRC Rule 3.769.)

The Court also preliminarily approves the Agreement’s costs allocation with the expectation that Counsel will provide a declaration, in moving for final approval, that shows actual costs.

Settlement Administrator

The Agreement provides for the payment of settlement administration costs, which are not expected to exceed $25,000. (SA, ¶ 6.1.) The Parties have chosen Apex Class Action Administration (“Apex”) to serve as Settlement Administrator. (Smith Decl., ¶ 57.) Apex estimates that its costs for administration will not exceed $11,000. (Id., ¶ 57, Exh. D.)

Apex is appointed as Settlement Administrator and the allocation is reasonable and preliminarily approved.

Class Representative Service Payment

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008383: MICHAEL PAYNE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

The Agreement provides for the payment of service awards in an amount up to $10,000 to each Plaintiff. (SA, ¶ 5.2.) Plaintiffs describe their efforts but fail to estimate the amount of time they spent prosecuting this action. (Payne Decl., ¶¶ 6-9; Sommerdorf Decl., ¶¶ 6-9.)

Plaintiffs must file declarations that attest to the nature of their individual participation in this case, including a description of their specific actions and an estimate of time they committed to prosecuting the case. (See Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 804-807.)

Compliance Hearing

The Court sets a Compliance Hearing for August 7, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. No later than July 31, 2026, Plaintiffs shall file (1) a supplemental declaration describing Counsel’s fee-splitting agreement, (2) supplemental declarations from Plaintiffs estimating the time they spent prosecuting this action, and (3) a revised Notice and Share Form, with redline copy, for the Court’s review.

If Plaintiffs adequately address the Court’s concerns, the Court will sign the Proposed Order submitted with Plaintiffs’ moving papers, noting the revised Notice and Share Form at paragraph 7 and adding the Final Approval Hearing at paragraph 13.

Final Approval Hearing

The Court will again review and consider the terms of this settlement at the time of the final approval hearing. The Court sets a Final Approval Hearing for January 8, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. If either party is unavailable on that date, the parties shall meet and confer to identify three other Fridays at 9:00 a.m. that work for the parties to schedule the hearing. They shall then submit those dates to the Court via email at Dept8B@saccourt.ca.gov, and the Court will reschedule the hearing accordingly.

The briefing shall be filed in conformity with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

[1] The Effective Date “shall be the date when all of the following events have occurred: (a) this

Settlement Agreement has been executed by all Parties and by Class Counsel and Defense Counsel; (b) the Court has given preliminary approval to the Class Settlement; (c) notice has been given to the Settlement Class providing them with an opportunity to request exclusion from the Class Settlement; (d) the Court has held a Final Approval and Fairness Hearing and entered a final order and judgment certifying the Settlement Class and approving this Settlement

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008383: MICHAEL PAYNE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

Agreement; and (e) the later of the following events: (i) the expiration of the period for filing any appeal, writ, or other appellate proceeding opposing the Class Settlement has elapsed without any appeal, writ, or other appellate proceeding having been filed; (ii) the dismissal of any appeal, writ, or other appellate proceeding opposing the Class Settlement with no right to pursue further remedies or relief; or (iii) any appeal, writ, or the issuance of such other final appellate order upholding the Court’s final order with no right to pursue further remedies or relief.

In this regard, it is the intention of the Parties that the Class Settlement shall not become effective until the Court’s order approving the Class Settlement is completely final and there is no further recourse by an appellant or objector who seeks to contest the Class Settlement. If no objections are filed, the Effective Date shall be after steps (a) through (d) are completed (i.e., the date that the court has entered a final order and judgment certifying the Settlement Class and approving this Settlement Agreement).” (SA, ¶ 1.17.) [2] The Agreement actually defines the NSA as the GSA minus Administrative Expenses; Class

Attorney Fees and Expenses; 75% of the share of the GSA allocated toward penalties pursuant to PAGA that are payable to the LWDA; and Plaintiffs’ Service Awards. (SA, ¶ 1.25.) However, the Agreement makes clear that the 25% share of the PAGA Penalties will be distributed to the PAGA Settlement Class. (Id., ¶¶ 1.28, 5.4, 8.3.) [3] Counsel failed to quantify the discount applied to the meal and rest break claims and PAGA

penalties. The Court estimated the discounts applied based on the exposure estimates provided.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8B at (916) 874-5762 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.)

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. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore.

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008383: MICHAEL PAYNE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs REACH AIR MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 07/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action and PAGA in Department 8B

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 Office and an official reporter will be provided.

If oral argument is requested, the Parties are encouraged to appear via Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16184738886 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16184738886

Counsel for Plaintiffs 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/divisions/civil/complex-civil-cases. 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.