KAROLINA JEORGE vs TRES HERMANOS Y AMIGO 1, LLC, et al.

25CV001913: KAROLINA JEORGE vs TRES HERMANOS Y AMIGO 1, LLC, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Karolina Jeorge’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for approval of the Parties’ Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) settlement is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED, as follows.

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 (Distribution Compliance Hearing) is scheduled for 07/30/2027 at 10:30 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 a motion for approval of a PAGA 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.

Background

On October 18, 2024, Plaintiff submitted and served the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) and Defendants Tres Hermanos Y Amigo 1, LLC, Tres Hermanos Y Amigo 2, LLC, Tres Hermanos Y Amigo 3, LLC, and Tres Hermanos Y Amigo 4, LLC (“Defendants”) by U.S. Certified Mail a PAGA Notice on behalf of herself and the other non-exempt, Aggrieved Employees who were employed by Defendants. (S. Wheeler Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.)

On January 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint for civil penalties under PAGA, based on Defendants alleged failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide required rest breaks, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain required records, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures, the failure to provide suitable seating, and failure to implement a workplace prevention policy. (Complaint.)

Plaintiff now moves for approval of the Parties’ Stipulation for Settlement and Release Under the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code § 2698, et seq. (“Agreement”). (S. Wheeler Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. B (“SA”).) On July 31, 2026, notice of this Settlement and the approval hearing was provided to the LWDA by filing a copy of the Agreement via the LWDA’s website. (Id., ¶¶ 7-8, Exh. C-D.)

25CV001913: KAROLINA JEORGE vs TRES HERMANOS Y AMIGO 1, LLC, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

Legal Standard

The purpose of PAGA is to “create a means of ‘deputizing’ citizens as private attorneys general to enforce the Labor Code.” (Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 489, 501.) A PAGA plaintiff is an “aggrieved employee” who brings a civil action “personally and on behalf of other current or former employees to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations” as the “proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies.” (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 380; Labor Code, § 2699.)

The settlement of a PAGA claim requires court approval pursuant to the operative PAGA statute, which states that the “[t]he superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part.” (Labor Code, § 2699(s)(2).) Such review and approval must “ensur[e] that any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.)

Aside from the requirement that the court “review and approve” a settlement in a civil action filed under PAGA, PAGA itself does not provide a standard for this review and approval in the majority of PAGA cases. (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 75 (Moniz) [citing Flores v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide (C.D. Cal. 2017) 253 F.Supp.3d 1074, 1075 [“[PAGA] is surprisingly short on specifics”]].) In Moniz, the First District Court of Appeal clarified that a trial court “should evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA’s purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (Id., at p. 77.)

Because many of the factors used to evaluate class action settlements bear on a settlement’s fairness – including the strength of the plaintiff’s case, the risk, the stage of the proceeding, the complexity and likely duration of further litigation, and the settlement amount – these facts can be useful in evaluating the fairness of a PAGA settlement. (Ibid.)

Analysis

Under the terms of the Agreement, Defendants deny liability but agree to pay a non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $80,000 to resolve Plaintiff’s claims on behalf of the Aggrieved Employees. (SA, ¶ B.10, C.1, F.21.) The Aggrieved Employees are “all non-exempt, hourly current and former employees who worked for Defendants in the State of California at any time from October 18, 2023 to January 31, 2026. (Id., ¶ B.2.) No later than 30 calendar days after the Effective Date, Defendants shall begin funding the GSA by transmitting the funds to the Administrator by wire or as otherwise instructed by the Administrator. (Id., ¶ C.3.)

No later than 30 calendar days after the Effective Date,[1] Defendants shall make an initial payment in the amount of $26,667. (Ibid.) No later than 30 calendar days after the initial payment becomes due, Defendants shall make a second payment in the amount of $26,667. (Ibid.) No later than 30 calendar days after the second payment becomes due, Defendants shall make a third payment in the amount of $26,666. (Ibid.) Any interest that is earned on the GSA shall be allocated to the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001913: KAROLINA JEORGE vs TRES HERMANOS Y AMIGO 1, LLC, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

Net Settlement Fund. (Ibid.)

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA: - An enhancement payment to Plaintiff up to $6,000. (SA, ¶ C.8.) - An Attorneys’ fees payment not to exceed $26,640 and actual costs up to $19,000. (Id., ¶ C.9.) - Settlement administration costs, which are currently estimated to be $5,000. (Id., ¶ C.10.)

The remaining amount, the Net Settlement Fund, will be used to satisfy Individual Settlement Payments to the Aggrieved Employees and the LWDA in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. (SA, ¶¶ B.11, B.13, C.4.) Pursuant to PAGA, 65% of the Net Settlement Fund will be allocated to the LWDA and the remaining 35% will be paid to the Aggrieved Employees. (Id., ¶ C.4.) The Administrator shall calculate the Individual Settlement Payments by dividing the Net PAGA Payment by the total number of pay periods in the PAGA Period. (Id., ¶¶ C.2, C.5.) The value will then be multiplied by the number of pay periods worked by each respective Aggrieved Employee during the PAGA Period. (Id., ¶ C.5.)

Within 10 calendar days after the Effective Date, Defendants shall make their best good faith attempt to provide the Administrator with an Excel spreadsheet including each Aggrieved Employee’s full name, employee number, most recent mailing address, social security number, and number of compensable pay periods during the PAGA Period. (SA, ¶ D.3.) Within 14 days after the payment of the entire GSA, the Administrator will initiate payments distributing the settlement. (Id., ¶ C.4.) When making payments to the Aggrieved Employees, the Administrator will mail each Aggrieved Employee, via first-class United States Mail, their Individual PAGA Payment and the PAGA Notice, in English and Spanish (collectively, the “PAGA Packet”). (Id., ¶ D.5.a.) The Proposed PAGA Notice fairly describes the settlement and is approved. (Id., Exh. B.)

Prior to mailing, the Administrator will update all addresses using the National Change of Address System. (SA, ¶ D.5.b.) In the event that a PAGA Packet is returned with a forwarding address, the Administrator will re-send the PAGA Packet to the forwarding address identified. (Ibid.) If no forwarding address is provided, the Administrator will promptly conduct a skip trace to locate a better address. (Ibid.) If a better address is found, the Administrator will promptly resend the PAGA Packet. (Ibid.) If a better address is not found or the PAGA Packet is ultimately returned without a forwarding address, no further action is required. (Ibid.)

Aggrieved Employees shall have 180 calendar days after the date the PAGA Packet is mailed to them to cash their settlement checks. (SA, ¶ D.5.c.) If any check is not cashed within that period, the check will be voided. (Ibid.) Any unpaid cash residue or unclaimed Aggrieved Employee funds shall be delivered to the State of California Controller’s Office in the name of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001913: KAROLINA JEORGE vs TRES HERMANOS Y AMIGO 1, LLC, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

Aggrieved Employee. (Id., ¶ D.5.d.) All Individual Settlement Payments shall be allocated 100% as penalties and shall be reported on an IRS Form 1099. (Id., ¶ C.6.)

“Upon the payment of the [GSA] by Defendants, Plaintiff on behalf of the State of California, shall be deemed to have fully and finally released and discharged the Released Parties from any and all claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, guarantees, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees, damages, action or cause of action contingent or accrued for, during the time period from October 18, 2023, through January 31, 2026, arising out of the PAGA claim asserted in the operative complaint and the LWDA letter based upon the following: 1) failure to provide meal periods; 2) failure to provide rest periods; 3) failure to provide overtime wages; 4) failure to pay minimum wages; 5) failure to timely pay wages during employment; 6) failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; 7) failure to furnish itemized wage statements; 8) failure to maintain required records; 9) failure to reimburse for necessary expenditures incurred in the discharge of duties; 10) failure to provide suitable seating; and 11) failure to implement a workplace violence prevention policy, as well as all facts, theories, or claims for civil penalties that would be considered administratively exhausted under applicable law by the LWDA Letter Plaintiff sent to the LWDA and subsequent complaint.” (SA, ¶ E.1.)

Elsewhere, the Agreement defines the PAGA Released Claims as “[a]ll claims for statutory penalties released by Plaintiff that were or could have been sought by the Labor Commissioner for the violations identified in Plaintiff’s pre-filing letter to the LWDA dated October 18, 2024 and the operative complaint. (Id., ¶ B.17.) While somewhat verbose, the Court is persuaded that the release is appropriately tethered to the claims that were alleged or could have been alleged based on the claims and facts alleged in Plaintiff’s LWDA notice and operative complaint.

Plaintiff is subject to a general release. (Id., ¶¶ E.3, E.4.) The Agreement makes clear that Aggrieved Employees have no statutory right to opt out or otherwise exclude themselves from the settlement. (Id., ¶ E.2.)

Plaintiff’s moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was reached after sufficient investigation and arms-length negotiations. Before participating in the mediation session and reaching the decision to settle this matter, Plaintiff’s counsel conducted a thorough investigation into the facts of the action, including extensive formal and informal discovery in furtherance of the mediation. (S. Wheeler Decl., ¶ 11.) Among other things, Defendants produced relevant policy documents, wage statements for PAGA Employees, a 24% random sample of numerous pages of electronic time and payroll records of PAGA Employees, and other pertinent documents. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff’s expert evaluated the time and payroll records and conducted an exposure analysis based on Plaintiff’s claims and theories of liability. (Ibid.) Plaintiff and her counsel were well apprised of the salient factual and legal issues and had sufficient information to evaluate the strengths and weakness of the case, the risks of continued litigation, and Defendants’ potential exposure if Plaintiff were to prevail at trial. (Ibid.) On January 9, 2026, the Parties participated in a mediation session with the highly experienced mediator, Kelly Knight, Esq. (Id., ¶ 5.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001913: KAROLINA JEORGE vs TRES HERMANOS Y AMIGO 1, LLC, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

Plaintiff estimated Defendants’ maximum PAGA exposure as follows:

Labor Code Violations Penalties Meal Period Violations (1,232 x $100) $123,200 Rest Break Violations $0.00 Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226 (2,674 x $100) $267,400 Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 (0 x $100) $0.00 Failure to Pay Wages (1,168 x $100) $116,800 Failure to Pay Overtime Wages (507 x $100) $50,700.00 Waiting Time – Section 203 (130 x. $100) $13,000.00 Failure to Timely Pay Wages Section 204 (2,674 x. $100) $267,400.00 Failure to Maintain Records ($500) $500.00 Failure to Implement a Violence Prevention Policy $0.00 Failure to Provide Suitable Seating $0.00 Total: $839,000.00

(S. Wheeler Decl., ¶ 19.) Counsel adequately describes the underlying claims, Defendants’ defenses, the risks of continued litigation, and the exposures summarized above. (Id., ¶¶ 16-21.) However, Counsel acknowledges that it was unlikely Plaintiff would be able to prove any of the alleged violations were knowingly or intentionally made by Defendants or that Plaintiff would be able to recover the maximum PAGA penalties because the penalties cannot be unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory. (Id., ¶¶ 22-27.)

Counsel also acknowledges Plaintiff’s derivative claims are subject to the same risks as her underlying Labor Code claims and proving any actual would be expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain. (Id., ¶¶ 28-29.) A central driver of the Parties settlement valuation was the substantial risk that any civil penalties recovered at trial on Plaintiff's meal and rest period claims would be capped at 30% – and potentially 15% for – the maximum statutory amount under the penalty mitigation provisions added in the recent PAGA reforms. (Id., ¶ 30.)

Thus, Plaintiff believed the reasonable exposure is in a range between $45,000 to $118,000. (Id., ¶ 31.) The GSA represents 9.54% of Defendants’ maximum exposure. (Ibid.)

Counsel attests to their experience litigating similar claims. (S. Wheeler Decl., ¶¶ 34-42; J. Wheeler Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) The Court finds the Settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate as required under Labor Code section 2698 et seq. The Court also finds that the Settlement Agreement provides a recovery that creates an effective substantial deterrent to any potential future noncompliance, furthering the purpose of the Labor Code and the LWDA.

Settlement Administrator

The Agreement designates Phoenix Settlement Administration Solutions (“Phoenix”) as

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001913: KAROLINA JEORGE vs TRES HERMANOS Y AMIGO 1, LLC, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

Administrator and provides for the payment of settlement administration costs, which are currently estimated to be $5,000. (SA, ¶¶ B.20, C.10.) Phoenix’s will not exceed quote is $4,500. (Lawrence Decl., ¶ 22, Exh. B.)

Phoenix is appointed as Settlement Administrator and its estimated costs are reasonable and approved.

Attorneys’ Fee Award and Costs

The Agreement provides for an Attorneys’ fees payment not to exceed $26,640 and actual costs up to $19,000. (SA, ¶ C.9.) Plaintiff argues that the Court should approve the requested attorneys’ fees award because “[t]his action resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest” and “conferred a significant benefit for 211 Aggrieved Employees.” (Mot., pp. 15:17-16:3.) Plaintiff further argues that the requested award is well-within the range of fees generally sought and approved in analogous common fund class action cases. (Id., p. 16:4-18:12.) Plaintiff further argues that the requested award is reasonable under the lodestar method. (Id., pp. 18:13-20:23.)

Counsel’s lodestar is broken down as follows:

Attorney Experience Rate Time Total Scott Earnest Wheeler 1997 $950 51.50 $48,925.00 Justin A. Wheeler 2010 $425 19.10 $8,117.50

Total: 70.60 $57,042.50

(S. Wheeler Decl., ¶¶ 50, 52-53; J. Wheeler Decl., ¶¶ 3, 7-8.) Counsel provides a summary of the tasks performed and the time spent on each task. (S. Wheeler Decl., ¶ 54, Exh. E; J. Wheeler Decl., ¶ 9, Exh. A.)

The Court is persuaded that the requested fee award is reasonable and appropriate.

Counsel attests to incurring a total of $16,127.99 in costs. (S. Wheeler Decl., ¶ 59, Exh. B.) These costs are reasonable and appropriate.

Enhancement Payment

The Agreement provides for an enhancement payment in an amount not to exceed $6,000. (SA, ¶ C.8.) Plaintiff generally describes her efforts and estimates that she spent approximately 28 hours on this case. (Jeorge Decl., ¶¶ 6-10.) Plaintiff argues that the requested service award is reasonable, consistent with awards in similar cases, and supported by Plaintiff’s efforts and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001913: KAROLINA JEORGE vs TRES HERMANOS Y AMIGO 1, LLC, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

general release. (Mot., p. 21:5-22:11.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff provides sufficient justification for this payment.

Disposition

Finding no objection, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. The Court will sign the Proposed Order submitted with Plaintiff’s moving papers, correcting the judicial officer’s name, adding the Distribution Compliance Hearing at paragraph 17, and correcting the associated filing deadline.

To the extent there are any DOE Defendants in this action, they are DISMISSED.

The Court sets a Distribution Compliance Hearing for July 30, 2027 at 10:30 a.m. At least 15 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] The Effective Date is the Date on which the Superior Court’s Order and Judgment approving

the settlement is entered by the Court. (Id., ¶ B.8.)

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.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001913: KAROLINA JEORGE vs TRES HERMANOS Y AMIGO 1, LLC, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement PAGA in Department 8B

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 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/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.