DELGADO, et al. vs MOSAIC DENTAL COLLECTIVE, LLCA CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, et al.

23CV005660: DELGADO, et al. vs MOSAIC DENTAL COLLECTIVE, LLCA CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, et al. 10/31/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Jessie Delgado’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for final approval of the Parties’ class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) settlement is UNOPPOSED and tentatively GRANTED, pending the final fairness hearing and subject to Plaintiff providing a supplemental declaration regarding the cy pres recipient. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 382; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769.)

Status Conference (Compliance Hearing) is scheduled for 11/14/2025 at 10:30 AM in Department 22 at Gordon D. Schaber Superior Court.

Status Conference (Distribution Compliance Hearing) is scheduled for 08/21/2026 at 10:30 AM in Department 22 at Gordon D. Schaber Superior Court.

The Court has provided specific direction on the information and argument the Court requires to grant a motion for preliminary and final 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.

The Parties are expected to carefully review the Court’s instructions and ensure that they adequately comply. Failing to address issues previously raised by the Court wastes judicial resources and imposes unnecessary burdens on the parties and the Court. In the future, counsel shall make every effort to comply with the Court’s instructions. Failure to do so may lead to sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 and/or a reduction in the requested attorney’s fees award.

NOTICE:

The Parties are encouraged to appear via Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept22 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16184738886

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 at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official

23CV005660: DELGADO, et al. vs MOSAIC DENTAL COLLECTIVE, LLCA CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, et al. 10/31/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

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.

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.

Background

On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff initiated this wage and hour class action based on Defendant Mosaic Dental Collective’s (“Defendant”) alleged: (1) failure to pay all overtime and sick wages; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest breaks; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (5) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; (6) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and (7) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code 17200 et seq. (“UCL”). (Bokhour Decl. ISO Prelim. App., ¶ 16.) On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging a cause of action seeking PAGA penalties. (Ibid.)

On May 30, 2025, the Court tentatively granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval. (5- 30-25 Minute Order.) The Court signed the formal order on June 11, 2025. (6-11-25 Order.) Plaintiff now seeks final approval of the Parties’ Class Action and PAGA Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 27, Exh. B (“SA”.) Plaintiff submitted the Agreement to the LWDA. (Id., ¶ 26, Exh. A.)

Legal Standard

Courts review class action settlements in a three-stage process: (1) an earlier conditional review by the court; (2) a period during which notice is distributed to class members for their comments or objections; and (3) a later detailed review after the notice period when the court decides whether to give “final approval.” (Rubenstein, Newberg and Rubinstein on Class Actions (6th Ed. 2025) § 13:1 (Newberg); see also Cal. R. Ct. Rule 3.769.) This procedure, which is commonly utilized by both federal and state courts, assures class members of the protection of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005660: DELGADO, et al. vs MOSAIC DENTAL COLLECTIVE, LLCA CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, et al. 10/31/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

procedural due process safeguards and enables a court to fulfill its role as the guardian of the interest of the settlement class.

As required by the applicable Rule of Court, the Court must conduct a final approval hearing to inquire into the fairness of the proposed settlement. (Cal. R. Ct., Rule 3.769(g).) The Court has broad discretion to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair. (Mallick v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 434, 438.) The law favors settlement, particularly in class actions and other complex cases where substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, cost, and rigors of formal litigation. (See Newberg, supra, § 13:44 (and cases cited therein); Class Plaintiffs v.

City of Seattle (9th Cir. 1992) 955 F.2d 1268, 1276; Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp. (9th Cir. 1976) 529 F.2d 943, 950.) In approving a class action settlement, the Court must “satisfy itself that the class settlement is within the ‘ballpark’ of reasonableness.” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 133.) In making its fairness determination, the Court should consider the relevant factors, such as the strength of the plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expenses, 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, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. (Dunk v.

Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) “The most important factor is the strength of the case for plaintiffs on the merits, balanced against the amount offered in settlement.” (Kullar, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 130 [internal quotes omitted].) 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. (Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.)

Ultimately, the court's determination is simply “an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough justice.” (Id., at p. 1801.)

Settlement Agreement and Class Response

Under the terms of the Agreement, Defendant denies liability, but agrees to pay a Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $240,000 to resolve Plaintiff’s claims. (SA, ¶¶ 1.20, 3.1, 12.1.) Plaintiff represents the following class: “all individuals who are or were employed by Mosaic Dental as non-exempt hourly employees in California during the Class Period.” (Id., ¶ 1.4.) The Class Period means the period from July 28, 2019, through December 31, 2024. (Id., ¶ 1.11.) Defendant shall be separately responsible for the cost of its share of employer-side payroll taxes owed on the Wage Portion of Individual Class Payments. (Id., ¶ 1.20.)

The Administrator will disburse the entire GSA without asking or requiring Participating Class Members or PAGA Members to submit any claim as a condition of payment, and none of the GSA will revert to Defendant. (Id., ¶ 3.1.) Defendant shall fund the GSA within 30 calendar days of final approval. (Id., ¶ 4.3.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005660: DELGADO, et al. vs MOSAIC DENTAL COLLECTIVE, LLCA CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, et al. 10/31/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA: (1) A Class Representative Service Award of up to $10,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.) (2) Attorneys’ fees of up to one-third of the GSA ($80,000) and litigation costs up to $20,000. (Id., ¶ 3.2.2.) (3) Administration costs up to $7,500. (Id., ¶ 3.2.3.) (4) A PAGA penalty of $10,000, with $7,500 (75%) to be paid to the LWDA and $2,500 (25%) distributed to PAGA Members. (Id., ¶ 3.2.6.)

The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) –will be distributed to the Participating Class Members on a pro rata basis as Individual Class Payments. (SA, ¶¶ 1.21, 1.26.) An Individual Class Payment is calculated by (a) dividing the NSA by the total number of Workweeks worked by all Participating Class Members during the Class Period and (b) multiplying the result by each Participating Class Member’s Workweeks. (Id., ¶ 3.2.4.) Similarly, the PAGA Members’ portion of the PAGA penalty will be distributed on a pro rata basis with the Individual PAGA Payments calculated by (a) dividing the amount of the PAGA Members’ portion by the total number of PAGA Period Pay Periods worked by all PAGA Members during the PAGA Period and (b) multiplying the result by each PAGA Member’s PAGA Period Pay Periods. (Id., ¶¶ 1.22, 3.2.6.1.)

For tax purposes, 20% of each Participating Class Member’s Individual Class Payment will be allocated to settlement of wage claims and reported on an IRS W-2 Form. (SA, ¶ 3.2.4.1.) The remaining 80% will be allocated to settlement of claims for all interest and penalties and reported on IRS 1099 Forms. (Ibid.) Individual PAGA Payments will be reported on IRS 1099 Forms. (Id., ¶ 3.2.6.2.) The Administrator will issue checks for the Individual Class Payments and/or Individual PAGA Payments and send them to the Class Members via First Class United States Postal Service (“USPS”) Mail. (Id., ¶ 4.4.1.)

The face of each check shall prominently state the date (not less than 180 days after the date of mailing) when the check will be voided. (Ibid.) 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 Parties’ mutually agreed-upon designated cy pres recipient Legal Aid at Work. (Id., ¶ 4.4.3.) Plaintiff’s Counsel does not have an interest in the cy pres recipient. (6-2-25 Bokhour Supp.

Decl., ¶ 4.) As the Court made clear in its June 13, 2025 Minute Order, Plaintiff was expected to file a declaration regarding the cy pres recipient before final approval. (6-13-25 Minute Order.) Plaintiff failed to do so. Plaintiff must do so now.

Effective on the date when Defendant fully funds the entire GSA and funds all employer payroll taxes owed, Plaintiff, Class Members, and Class Counsel will release claims against all Released Parties as follows: - Plaintiff is subject to a general release. (SA, ¶¶ 5, 5.1, 5.3.) - “Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and each Participating Class Member, acknowledges that this Settlement is intended to include in its effect a full release of all claims and/or causes

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005660: DELGADO, et al. vs MOSAIC DENTAL COLLECTIVE, LLCA CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, et al. 10/31/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

of action against the Released Parties asserted in the Operative Complaint, or that could have been in asserted in the Operative Complaint, based on the facts alleged in the Operative Complaint under any federal, state or local law, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, or administrative order, including, but not limited to, the failure to pay minimum wages, the failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to pay sick time pay, the failure to provide timely, uninterrupted meal periods (or meal period premiums in lieu thereof), the failure to provide timely, uninterrupted paid rest periods (or rest period premiums in lieu thereof), the failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, the failure to provide accurate itemized statements, the failure to timely pay wages throughout employment, the failure to timely pay all wages upon separation of employment, the failure to pay waiting-time penalties, and any other claims whatsoever that were alleged in the Operative Complaint or which arise out of such facts, including, without limitation, all related claims for restitution and other equitable relief under Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, and penalties, and arising from their work for Defendant in California during the Class Period.” (Id., ¶¶ 5, 5.2.) - “Plaintiff and all Aggrieved Employees (regardless whether they opt out of the settlement of the class claims) release the Released Parties of all claims and/or causes of action for civil penalties (and associated attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest) under the PAGA that are based on the claims for Labor Code violations (as set forth in Paragraph 5.2 of the Settlement Agreement) and alleged in Plaintiff’s PAGA Notice arising during their work for Defendant in California during the PAGA Period.” (Id., ¶¶ 5, 5.3.)

Garvin Brown, a Case Manager for ILYM Group, Inc. (“ILYM”) attests that the Court-approved Notice was mailed to all 436 individuals identified in the class data via U.S. First Class Mail on July 10, 2025, after conducting a National Change of Address database search. (Brown Decl., ¶¶ 4-7.) A total of 14 Notices were returned as undeliverable. (Id., ¶ 8.) Only two were returned with a forwarding address and the Notices were promptly re-mailed to the forwarding addresses provided. (Ibid.) ILYM performed a skip trace on the 12 Notices returned without a forwarding address. (Ibid.)

As a result of this skip trace, 8 updated addresses were obtained and the Notices were promptly re-mailed. (Ibid.) A total of 10 Notice Packets have been re-mailed. (Id., ¶ 9.) A total of 4 Notices have been deemed undeliverable. (Id., ¶ 10.) ILYM did not receive any objections or disputes. (Id., ¶¶ 12-13.) ILYM received four requests for exclusion. (Id., ¶ 11.) Counsel shall be prepared to identify these individuals so their names can be included in the Court’s Order. Accordingly, ILYM reports a total of 432 participating Class Members, representing 99.08% of the Class. (Id., ¶ 14.)

The Participating Class Members will receive an estimated average gross payment of $269.99, with the estimated highest gross payment being $727.39. (Id., ¶ 17.)

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Bokhour Decl., ¶¶ 3-12; Falakassa Decl., ¶¶ 3-9.) Having provided sufficient information regarding damage analysis at preliminary

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005660: DELGADO, et al. vs MOSAIC DENTAL COLLECTIVE, LLCA CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, et al. 10/31/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

approval, the Court is inclined to find, subject to the final fairness hearing, that the Settlement is within the ballpark of reasonableness and is entitled to a presumption of fairness, and all relevant factors presently support final approval.

PAGA Payment

The Agreement provides for a PAGA penalty of $10,000, with $7,500 (75%) to be paid to the LWDA and $2,500 (25%) distributed to PAGA Members. (SA, ¶ 3.2.6.) PAGA Member means “any non-exempt hourly employee who works or worked for Mosaic Dental in California at any time during the PAGA Period.” (Id., ¶ 1.28.) The PAGA Period means the period from July 26, 2022 through December 31, 2024. (Id., ¶ 1.30.) As discussed above, the PAGA Members’ portion of the PAGA penalties will be distributed on a pro rata basis and the PAGA Members are subject to a separate release. (Id., ¶¶ 1.22, 3.2.6.1, 5.3.) The Agreement makes clear that PAGA Members cannot opt out of the PAGA portion of the settlement. (Id., ¶ 7.4.4.)

ILYM reports that the PAGA Employees will receive an estimated average payment of $12.02, with the estimated highest payment being $36.50. (Brown Decl., ¶ 17.) Having previously found Counsel’s valuation well-reasoned and persuasive at the preliminary approval stage, the PAGA Penalty is tentatively approved.

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

Courts generally recognize two methods for calculating fees in civil class actions: the lodestar/multiplier method and the percentage-of-recovery method. (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 254.) “The percentage method calculates the fee as a percentage share of a recovered common fund or the monetary value of plaintiffs’ recovery. The lodestar method, or more accurately the lodestar-multiplier method, calculates the fee ‘by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by counsel by a reasonable hourly rate.’” (Laffitte v.

Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 489.) In determining fees and costs to be awarded to Class Counsel, the Court must exercise its judicial function and make a decision on the propriety of the fees requested; it should not, and does not, abdicate its charge to make a decision simply because the parties may have reached their own agreement in this regard. The choice of a fee calculation method is generally one within the discretion of the trial court, the goal “being the award of a reasonable fee to compensate counsel for their efforts.” (Id. at p. 504.) “‘The lodestar method better accounts for the amount of work done, while the percentage of the fund method more accurately reflects the results achieved.’ Each has been championed and criticized for its respective advantages and disadvantages.” (Ibid., quoting Rawlings v.

Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc. (6th Cir. 1993) 9 F.3d 513, 516.)

The Agreement provides for a Class Counsel fees payment of not more than $80,000,[1] representing 33.33% of the GSA, and a Class Counsel litigation expenses payment of not more

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005660: DELGADO, et al. vs MOSAIC DENTAL COLLECTIVE, LLCA CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, et al. 10/31/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

than $20,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.2.) Plaintiff signed a fee split agreement that provides fees will be allocated between Class Counsel as follows: fifty percent (50%) to the Bokhour Law Group, P.C. and fifty percent (50%) to the Falakassa Law, P.C. (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 36; Falakassa Decl., ¶ 25.) Plaintiff argues that the requested fees payment is fair and reasonable as a percentage of the common fund and under the Labor Code because (1) the requested fee award is within the reasonable range awarded in similar cases; (2) the requested fee award is supported by the quality of the work and results obtained; (3) of the contingent nature of the fee; (4) a lodestar cross-check confirms the reasonableness of the fee award; and (5) public policy considerations require the award of adequate fees. (Mot., pp. 9:17-17:25.)

The lodestar is broken down as follows:

Attorney Experience Rate Time Total Mehrdad Bokhour 13 years $725 62.5 $45,312.50 Joshua Falakassa 12 years $700 48.5 $33,950.00

Total: 110.01 $79,262.50[2]

(Bokhour Decl., ¶ 20; Falakassa Decl., ¶ 14.) Counsel reports that these hours include an anticipated 30 hours for final approval and post final approval work. (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 20, fn 1.) Counsel provides a summary of the work performed by general category. (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 21; Falakassa Decl., ¶ 15.) Counsel’s requested fee award only requires a modest multiplier of 1.01. Accordingly, the requested award is approved.

Counsel attests to incurring a total of $15,864.55 in litigation costs. (Bokhour Decl., ¶ 25.) The Court finds these costs reasonable and appropriate.

Settlement Administrator

ILYM attests that its total fees and costs for services in connection with the administration of this settlement are $7,500. (Brown Decl., ¶ 18.) The Court finds these costs reasonable and appropriate.

Class Representative Service Award

The Agreement provides for a service award not to exceed $10,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.) Plaintiff describes her efforts and estimates that she spent approximately 35-40 hours engaging in activities to benefit the Class. (Delgado Decl. ISO Prelim. App., ¶¶ 6-9.)

The Court finds these payments justified based on Plaintiff’s declaration and in the absence of any objections to the awards.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005660: DELGADO, et al. vs MOSAIC DENTAL COLLECTIVE, LLCA CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, et al. 10/31/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Compliance Hearing

The Court sets a Compliance Hearing for November 14, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. No later than November 7, 2025, Plaintiff shall file a supplemental declaration regarding the cy pres recipient.

No later than November 7, 2025, Plaintiff shall also separately file a revised Proposed Order that (1) corrects the number of Class Members that requested exclusion at paragraph 6 and adds their names; and (2) revises paragraph 23 to be consistent with the Distribution Compliance Hearing set below.

If Plaintiff adequately addresses the Court’s concerns, the Court will sign the revised Proposed Order, and no appearance will be required.

Disposition

In sum, and subject to the final fairness hearing, the Court tentatively concludes that the settlement is entitled to final approval. Provided that no objection is asserted by any Class Member at the hearing on this matter, the Court will sign the revised Proposed Order.

Any further Case Management Conferences and compliance hearings shall be handled by this Department. This Department shall monitor compliance with the settlement approval through and including the disbursement of any uncashed amount to the cy pres recipient.

The Court sets a Distribution Compliance Hearing for August 21, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. At least 15 calendar days prior to the hearing, Counsel shall file a declaration regarding the status of the distribution of the settlement funds. If the Court is satisfied that the settlement funds have been fully distributed, no appearance will be required.

[1] Plaintiff’s motion includes a reference to a fee award of $70,000. (Mot., p. 9:20-21.) The

Court assumes this is a drafting error and will rely on the amount stated in the Agreement. [2] Counsel reports that the total lodestar is $75,137.50; however, this appears to be in error.

(Bokhour Decl., ¶ 20.)

Counsel for Plaintiff 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/civil/complex-civil-cases.aspx. The Court strongly encourages

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005660: DELGADO, et al. vs MOSAIC DENTAL COLLECTIVE, LLCA CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, et al. 10/31/2025 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 22

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.