Ryan, et al. v. Mission Treatment Services, Inc., et al.

(Spring Street Courthouse: Dept. 11) August 26, 2026 DEPARTMENT 11 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Approval of Class Action Settlement Department SSC-11 Ryan, et al. v. Mission Treatment Services, Inc., et al. Case No.: 22STCV15217 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026

Prior to approval being granted, counsel need to address the following: 1. There are seventy-one (71) Class Members in the Class List who do not have a mailing address or Social Security number. (Mitzner Decl., P.4.) Phoenix is not able to send the Notice to the seventy-one (71) Class Members without an address. (Ibid.) Although as of May 14, 2026, zero (0) Notices have been returned to Phoenix, Phoenix is not able to send the Notice to the seventy-one (71) Class Members without an address. (Mitzner Decl., P.P.4, 7.) Thus, there are 71 Class Members who did not receive Notice. What is the plan for these Class Members? Will these Members be mailed checks?

2. There are an additional eleven (11) Class Members with a mailing address who do not have a Social Security number; a total of eighty-two (82) Class Members in the Class List do not have a Social Security number. (Mitzner Decl., P.4.) What is the plan for these 82 Class Members without SSNs? Will they be mailed checks? Will their monies be distributed to the State Controller's Office? BACKGROUND This is a wage and hour class action. On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff Ryan filed with the LWDA and served on Defendants a notice under Labor Code section 2699.3 stating Plaintiffs intended to serve as a proxy of the LWDA to recover civil penalties on behalf of Aggrieved Employees for various Labor Code violations ("Ryan PAGA Notice").

On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff Ryan filed the Class Action, a putative wage-and-hour class action, Case No. 22STCV15217, against Defendants Acadia Healthcare Inc. and Mission Treatment Services, Inc. Plaintiff Ryan asserted causes of action against Defendants for: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (4) Failure to Provide Rest Periods; (5) Waiting Time Penalties; (6) Wage Statement Violations; and (7) Unfair Competition. Defendants deny the allegations in the Class Action.

On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff Ryan filed the PAGA Action, a separate representative action in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 22STCV22280, seeking PAGA civil penalties on behalf of herself and all others aggrieved for violations of the same underlying Labor Code claims as the Class Action, in addition to claims for (1) failure to reimburse expenses; (2) failure to pay sick wages; (3) failure to pay paid time off and vacation time owed; (4) failure to furnish information required to be disclosed under Labor Code Sec. 2810.5; (5) unlawful competition in violation of Labor Code Sec.Sec. 232, 232.5, 1197.5, and 1102.5; and (6) failure to allow lawful conduct during non-work hours in violation of Labor Code Sec.Sec. 98.6, 232, 232.5, and 1197.5.

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff Fleming filed a class action complaint against Defendants Acadia Healthcare Inc. and California Treatment Services, LLC in the United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:22-cv-01791-DOC-JDE (the "Fleming Action"). Plaintiff Fleming asserted causes of action against Defendants for: (1) failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (2) failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the California Labor Code; (3) failure to pay wages for all hours worked in violation of the California Labor Code; (4) failure to provide meal periods or proper premiums in violation of the California Labor Code; (5) failure to provide rest periods or proper premiums in violation of the California Labor Code; (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of the California Labor Code; (7) failure to pay wages due and payable twice monthly in violation of the California Labor Code; (8) failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of the California Labor Code; (9) failure to pay wages upon termination in violation of the California Labor Code; and (10) unlawful competition and unlawful business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.

On September 7, 2022, Plaintiff Fleming filed a notice with the LWDA seeking civil penalties for various Labor Code Violations ("Fleming PAGA Notice" and with the Ryan PAGA Notice, the "PAGA Notices"). On November 15, 2022, Plaintiff Fleming filed a First Amended Complaint in the Fleming Action to include a cause of action for civil penalties under PAGA. Defendants deny the allegations in the Fleming Action. Counsel represent that the Parties agreed to exchange informal discovery and attend an early mediation, for which Defendants provided Plaintiffs with, among other things: (1) time records for 20% of the estimated 3,379 Class Members through mediation; (2) payroll records for 20% of the estimated 3,379 Class Members through mediation; (3) data points, including average rates of pay, the estimated number of workweeks worked in the Class Period through mediation, the estimated number of terminated/separated Class Members through mediation, the estimated number of Aggrieved Employees through mediation, and the estimated number of pay periods in the PAGA Period through mediation; and (4) employee handbooks and relevant policy documents in effect during the Class Period.

On

March 25, 2024, the Parties participated in a full-day mediation presided over by Gig Kyriacou, and with the aid of the mediator's evaluation, reached a Settlement to resolve the Actions. A fully executed long form Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on March 13, 2025 attached to the Supplemental Declaration of Brandon M. Chang ("Chang Decl.") ISO Preliminary Approval as Exhibit 1. On October 2, 2025, the Court issued a checklist of items for counsel to address and continued preliminary approval for further briefing and revisions.

In response, on October 23, 2025 Counsel filed a fully Amendment to the Settlement Agreement ("Amendment") attached to the Supplemental Declaration of Brandon M. Chang ("Chang Decl.") ISO Preliminary Approval as Exhibit 2. Preliminary Approval was granted on December 1, 2025. Notice was given to the Class Members as ordered. (See Declaration of Taylor Mitzner ("Mitzner Decl.").) Now before the Court is the motion for final approval of the settlement agreement. CLASS DEFINITION AND ESSENTIAL MONETARY TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT · "Class" or "Class Members" means all persons who are or were employed as hourly paid, non-exempt employees in the State of California at any time during the Class Period by Defendants, their affiliates and subsidiaries, including without limitation, Mission Treatment Services, Inc., California Treatment Services, LLC, San Diego Health Alliance, CRC ED Treatment, LLC, SJBH, LLC, Sober Living By the Sea, Inc., CRC Health, LLC, Vista Behavioral Hospital, LLC, and Bayside Marin, Inc. (Settlement, P.1.5) o " Class Period" means the period from September 8, 2020, through June 2, 2024. (P. 1.12) o The final mailing list contained three thousand seven hundred fifty-two (3,752) individuals identified as Class Members. (Mitzner Decl., P.3.) · "Aggrieved Employee" means a person employed by Defendants in California and classified as a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee who worked for Defendants, their affiliates and subsidiaries, including without limitation, Mission Treatment Services, Inc., California Treatment Services, LLC, San Diego Health Alliance, CRC ED Treatment, LLC, SJBH, LLC, Sober Living By the Sea, Inc., CRC Health, LLC, Vista Behavioral Hospital, LLC, and Bayside Marin, Inc during the PAGA Period. (P.1.4) o "PAGA Period" means the period from July 11, 2021, through the end of the Class Period. (P.1.31) o There are three thousand two hundred

thirty-four (3,234) Aggrieved Employees who worked a total of seventy-three thousand four hundred thirty-six (73,436) pay periods during the PAGA Period. (Mitzner Decl., P.14.) · Based on its records, Defendants represent that, as of the date of the mediation, Class Members collectively worked a total of 190,545 Workweeks during the Class Period. In the event the actual total number of Workweeks worked by Class Members exceeds 190,545 by more than 10% (i.e., if the actual Workweeks are greater than 209,600), then: (1) the Gross Settlement Amount shall be increased proportionately for each additional week worked above 209,600 Workweeks; or (2) Defendants can choose to end the Class Period on the date the number of Workweeks reaches 209,600 workweeks (190,545 plus 10%), at Defendants' sole discretion.

Thus, for example, should there be 211,505 Workweeks (i.e. 11 % greater than 190,545) in the Class Period, and Defendants elect option (1), then the Maximum Settlement Amount shall be increased by 1 % from $2,858,175.00 to 2,886,756.75. (P.8.1) o Settlement Class Members have worked a collective total of one hundred eighty-three thousand three hundred thirty-seven (183,337) Workweeks during the Class Period; therefore, the Escalator Clause has not been triggered. (Mitzner Decl., P.11.) · The Gross Settlement Amount ("GSA") is $2,858,175, non-reversionary. (P.4.1) · The Net Settlement Amount ("NSA") of $1,716,950 is the GSA minus: o Up to $952,725 (33%) for attorneys' fees (P.4.2.2, as Amended by Amendment); Sec.

Fee Split: (Chang Supp. Decl., P.2.) o Up to $70,000 for attorneys' costs (P.4.2.2); o Up to $15,000 for Enhancement Payments to the class representatives ($7,500 each) (P.4.2.1.); o Up to $28,500 for costs of settlement administration (P.4.2.3); and o Payment of $75,000 (75% of $100,000 PAGA penalty) to the LWDA (P.4.2.5). · Defendant will separately pay any and all employer payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portions of the Individual Class Payments. (P.4.1) · Funding of GSA: Defendants shall fully fund the Gross Settlement 28 Amount, and also fund the amounts necessary to fully pay Defendants' share of payroll taxes by transmitting the funds to the Administrator no later than 15 calendar days after the Effective Date. (P.4.3)

· Uncashed Settlement Checks: The Administrator will cancel all checks not cashed by the void date(not less than 180 days after the date of mailing). (P.5.4.1) For any Class Member whose Individual Class Payment check or Individual PAGA Payment check is uncashed and cancelled after the void date, the Administrator shall transmit the funds represented by such checks to the California Controller's Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Class Member thereby leaving no "unpaid residue" subject to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 384, subd. (b).

Any fees or costs associated with depositing the uncashed checks with the California Controller's Unclaimed Property Fund shall be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount. (P.5.4.3) · The proposed Settlement Agreement was submitted to the LWDA on March 13, 2025. (Chang Decl. ISO Preliminary Approval, P.18 and Exhibit 3 thereto.) ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT A. Does a presumption of fairness exist? The Court preliminarily found in its Order on December 1, 2025 that the presumption of fairness should be applied.

No facts have come to the Court's attention that would alter that preliminary conclusion. Accordingly, the settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness as set forth in the preliminary approval order. B. Is the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable? The settlement was preliminarily found to be fair, adequate and reasonable. Notice has now been given to the Class and the LWDA. Reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. Number of class members: 3,752 (Mitzner Decl., P.3.)

Number of notice packets mailed: 3,681 [1] (Id. at P.6.) Number of undeliverable notices: 0 [2] (Id. at P.7.) Number of opt-outs: 3 (Id. at P.8.) Number of objections: 0 (Id. at P.9.) Number of participating Settlement Class Members: 3,749 (Id. at P.11.) Average individual Class payment: $462.45 (Id. at P.13.) Highest

estimated Class payment: $1,844.01 (Ibid.) Lowest estimated Class payment: $9.46 (Ibid.) Number of PAGA Members: 3,234 (Id. at P.14.) Average PAGA payment: $7.73 (Ibid.) Highest estimated PAGA payment: $25.87 (Ibid.) Lowest estimated PAGA payment: $0.34 (Ibid.) The Court finds that the notice was given as directed and conforms to due process requirements. Given the reactions of the Class Members and the LWDA to the proposed settlement and for the reasons set for in the Preliminary Approval order, the settlement is found to be fair, adequate, and reasonable.

C. Attorney Fees and Costs Class Counsel request $952,725 (33%) in fees and litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $28,227.94 to Class Counsel. (Motion ISO Final, 28:7-11.) Plaintiffs represent that they consented to a fee sharing agreement between Bibiyan Law Group, P.C., and Kabateck LLP, via written instrument. (Declaration Of Plaintiff Kevin Fleming ("Fleming Decl."), P.21; Declaration Of Patricia Ryan ("Ryan Decl."), P.21.) The Settlement provides for attorney's fees up to $952,725 (33%) and costs of $70,000 (Settlement Agreement, P.4.2.2); the class was provided notice of the requested awards and none objected. (Mitzner Decl., P.9 and Exhibit A thereto.) "Courts recognize two methods for calculating attorney fees in civil class actions: the lodestar/multiplier method and the percentage of recovery method." (Wershba at 254.)

Here, class counsel requests attorney fees using the percentage method. (Motion ISO Final, pgs. 21-35.) The fee request represents 33% of the gross settlement amount which is the average generally awarded in class actions. See In re Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 558, fn. 13 ("Empirical studies show that, regardless whether the percentage method or the lodestar method is used, fee awards in class actions average around one-third of the recovery."). Counsel have provided the following lodestar information: Biller | Rate |

Attorney Hours | Lodestar | | | | | Bibiyan Law Group, P.C | $95 - $1,100 | 855.2 | $551,345.00 | Kabateck, LLP | $200 - $800 | 199.9 | $90,210.00 | Total | | 1,055.10 | $641,555.00 | (Bibiyan Decl. ISO Final Approval, P.16; Declaration of Shant A. Karnikian ("Karnikian Decl.") ISO Final, P.9.) Therefore, Class Counsel has spent a total of 1,055.10 hours on this matter for a total loadstar of $641,555, requiring a multiplier of 1.48 to reach the fee request. (Bibiyan Decl. ISO Final Approval, P.P.16, 21; Karnikian Decl. ISO Final, P.9.) As for costs, class counsel has incurred costs of $28,227.94, consisting of $27,458.83 for Bibiyan Law Group, P.C., and $769.11 for Kabateck, LLP. (Bibiyan Decl. ISO Final Approval, P.22 and Exhibit 1 thereto; Karnikian Decl. ISO Final, P.10.) Class Counsel is requesting $28,227.94 in costs, which is less than the settlement cap of $70,000.

(Ibid.) The costs in this case include, but are not limited to, filing costs ($1,448.20) mediation ($16,400), case anywhere, All-N-One Legal Support, and Berger Consulting Group ($6,930). (Ibid.) The costs seem reasonable and necessary to litigation. (Ibid.) Based on the above, the recommendation is to award $ 952,725 (1/3) for fees and $28,227.94 for litigation costs. D. Incentive Awards to Class Representatives The Settlement Agreement provides for up to $7,500 for a Service Payment to each of the Named Plaintiff s for a total of $15,000. (Settlement Agreement, P.3.2.1.)

Plaintiff Fleming represents that his contributions to this litigation include, but are not limited to spending at least 22 hours on the following: obtaining counsel, gathering documents, reviewing documents, answering counsel's questions, remaining available for mediation, and reviewing the settlement. (Fleming Decl., P.P.10-15.) Plaintiff Ryan represents that her contributions to this litigation include, but are not limited to spending at least 24 hours on the following: obtaining counsel, gathering documents, reviewing documents, answering counsel's questions, remaining available on-call for mediation, and reviewing the settlement. (Ryan Decl., P.P.10-15.)

Based on the above, the recommendation is to award an enhancement award in the amount of $ 7,500 per Plaintiff for a total of $15,000. E. Claims Administration Costs The claims administrator requests $28,500 for the costs of administering the settlement. (Mitzner Decl., P.16.) This is equal to the $28,500 maximum amount estimated in the Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement, P.4.2.3), and disclosed in the notice to class members, to which there were no objections. (Mitzner Decl., P.9 and Exhibit A thereto.)

Based on all the work performed by the Claims Administrator, the recommendation is to award costs in the requested amount of $28,500. [1] There are seventy-one (71) Class Members in the Class List who do not have a mailing address or Social Security number. (Mitzner Decl., P.4.) There are an additional eleven (11) Class Members with a mailing address who do not have a Social Security number; a total of eighty-two (82) Class Members in the Class List do not have a Social Security number. (Ibid.)

Phoenix is not able to send the Notice to the seventy-one (71) Class Members without an address. (Ibid.)

[2] Although as of May 14, 2026, zero (0) Notices have been returned to Phoenix, there are seventy-one (71) Class Members in the Class List who do not have a mailing address or Social Security number, and Phoenix is not able to send the Notice to the seventy-one (71) Class Members without an address. (Mitzner Decl., P.P.4, 7.) Case Number: 25STCV15514 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 11 Sandoval (25STCV15514) Tentative Ruling Re: Motion to Approve Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") Settlement Date: 8/26/26 Time: 11:00 am Moving Party: Jorge Sandoval ("Plaintiff") Opposing Party: None Department: 11 Judge: Bruce Iwasaki ________________________________________________________________________ TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff's motion to approve PAGA settlement is granted as to the gross settlement amount, attorney fees, attorney costs, administration costs, and net settlement amount.

During oral arguments, the Court will ask Plaintiff's counsel to discuss the scope of the release. BACKGROUND This is a wage-and-hour representative action. Here, Plaintiff requests approval of the parties' PAGA-only settlement. LAW PAGA permits an "aggrieved employee" to recover Labor Code civil penalties on the LWDA's behalf, if the LWDA declines to collect the penalties itself. (Cal. Lab. Code, Sec. 2699, subd. (a); see also Mejia v. Merchants Building Maintenance, LLC (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 723, 732-733.)

The California Supreme Court has distinguished between Labor Code "civil penalties" that are "intended to 'punish the employer' for wrongdoing, often 'without reference to the actual damage sustained'" and "statutory damages" that "primarily seek to compensate employees for actual losses incurred" - a PAGA action can recover only the former. (Z.B., N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175, 182, 198 [holding that Labor Code section 558 "amount sufficient to recover unpaid wages" is not a "civil penalty" recoverable via PAGA].) "A PAGA action is 'fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect the public and not to benefit private parties.'" (Mejia, supra, 38 Cal.App.5 th at 732; see also Iskanian v.

CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 381.) PAGA requires a court to "review and