Renteria vs. TTS Engineering Inc,

documents (e.g., revised settlement agreement, revised notice, revised proposed order) and any settlement provisions revised via amendment. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice, including to the LWDA, and to file a proof of service. Plaintiff must also serve the LWDA with any supplemental brief and any amended settlement documents, and file a proof of service. 109 Renteria vs. TTS Engineering Inc,

2024-01442426 Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement

The Court has reviewed the supplemental materials provided by Plaintiff’s Counsel and finds that they adequately address the previously identified issues. Accordingly, Plaintiff Edgardo Campos’s Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement is GRANTED.

On 11/26/2024, Plaintiffs Francisco Renteria and Edgardo Campos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Defendant TTS Engineering, Inc. (ROA #2.)

The operative complaint is the first amended complaint, filed on 1/30/2025, which added a PAGA cause of action and alleged a total of 9 causes of action, as follows:

1. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 204, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197]; 2. Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194 and 1198]; 3. Failure to Provide Meal Periods [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512]; 4. Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7]; 5. Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses [Cal. Lab. Code § 2802]; 6. Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination [Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201-203]; 7. Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements [Cal. Lab. Code § 226]; 8. Unfair Business Practices [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.]; and 9. Civil Penalties Under PAGA [Cal. Lab. Code § 2699, et seq.].

(ROA #15.)

On 2/21/2025, the Court entered an order on the parties’ stipulation, (1) dismissing Plaintiffs’ class allegations without prejudice, (2) submitting Plaintiffs’ individual claims—including their individual PAGA claims—to

binding arbitration, and (3) staying this action pending the conclusion of the arbitration. (ROA #26.)

On 12/9/2025, Plaintiff Campos filed the instant Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement and submitted for the Court’s review the PAGA Settlement Agreement. The motion seeks approval of the parties’ proposed settlement of Plaintiff’s PAGA claims for the non-reversionary gross settlement amount (GSA) of $125,000.

On 4/6/2026, the Court continued the first hearing on the Motion and asked Plaintiff’s Counsel to address various issues. (ROA #44.) Counsel submitted supplemental materials, but the Court identified additional issues for counsel to address, so on 6/25/2026, the Court continued the second hearing on the Motion. (ROA #50.) Counsel then submitted additional materials, including a fully executed Addendum to PAGA Settlement Agreement (collectively with original settlement agreement, “Settlement Agreement”) and an amended notice/cover letter to aggrieved employees that will accompany the payment to them. (See ROA #59.)

The settlement includes the claims of 127 PAGA Aggrieved Employees, defined as “all non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in California at any time during the PAGA Period.” The PAGA Period is 11/25/2023 through 9/14/2025 (not through 9/28/2025), after the escalator clause in the Settlement Agreement was triggered and Defendant elected to end the PAGA release period on 9/14/2025 (see ROA #48, ¶ 3).

Based on a review of all submissions made in support of the Motion, the Court finds the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

The Court previously concluded that an attorneys’ fee award totaling $37,500 or 30% of the GSA, constituting a 0.75 multiplier of counsel’s estimated lodestar amount, is fair, adequate, and reasonable for a settlement of this size, including considering the action’s contingent nature and the results achieved.

The Court also previously concluded that a PAGA General Release Fee of $7,500 to Plaintiff Campos is fair, adequate, and reasonable for a settlement of this size, given Plaintiff Campos’s broader release compared to the aggrieved employees’ release and given Plaintiff Campos’s representative service in this case which is not separately being compensated.

Accordingly, the Court approves the following specific awards and disbursements from the GSA:

• Attorneys’ fees totaling $37,500.00 awarded to Plaintiff’s counsel; • Litigation costs totaling $24,084.90 awarded to Plaintiff’s counsel; • Settlement administration costs of $3,750.00 awarded to Phoenix Class Action Administration; and • PAGA General Release Fee of $7,500.00 awarded to Plaintiff Edgardo Campos.

PAGA penalties in the amount of $52,165.10 shall be allocated as follows: sixty-five percent (65%), or $33,907.32, payable to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA); and thirty-five percent (35%), or $18,257.78, payable to the Aggrieved Employees in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Final Accounting is set for 5/20/2027, at 2:00 p.m. in Department CX102. Counsel shall submit the final report of the settlement administrator regarding the status of the settlement administration no later than sixteen (16) court days prior to the hearing. The final report must include all information necessary for the Court to determine the total amount of the settlement funds actually paid to the Aggrieved Employees and all others in accordance with the Settlement, as well as the amount of unclaimed funds, if any, remitted to the State Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund/the cy pre recipient. If the settlement funds are not completely disbursed by the report deadline, counsel must request a continuance. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of an Order to Show Cause re Monetary Sanctions.

Plaintiff to give notice of this ruling, including to the LWDA, within five (5) court days, and file proof of service. 110 Balt USA, LLC vs. Treadstone Medical LLC

2021-01237081 1. Ex Parte re. continuing trial & toll 5-year rule 2. Status Conference 1.

Disposition

Plaintiff Balt USA, LLC’s motion to continue trial and to extend the fiveyear deadline is GRANTED. The Court continues the trial to Monday, April 26, 2027, and finds, for the reasons stated below, that the five-year period within which this action must be brought to trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 is extended so that a trial commencing on that date is timely. The Court sets the pretrial critical-path deadlines specified in Part 5.

2. Procedural Posture; the Ex Parte Objection Is Overruled Balt initially sought this relief by ex parte application. At the hearing on that application the Court declined to grant relief on an emergency basis, but rather than deny the request it ordered the ex parte application to stand as the moving papers and set an expedited briefing schedule so that the continuance and five-year questions could be decided as a noticed motion on a developed record. (Notice re Matters Set at Aug. 20, 2026 Hearing (ROA 2134).) Defendants filed a full opposition on August 27, 2026, Balt filed its reply on September 1, 2026, and the matter was heard September 3, 2026.

Defendants renew their contention that the relief is procedurally improper because it was first presented ex parte and on shortened notice. (Defs.’ Opp. (ROA 2188).) That objection is overruled. The Court did not decide