DEASY, et al. vs WMK, LLC, et al.

23CV005712: DEASY, et al. vs WMK, LLC, et al. 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

Tentative Ruling

NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED

Plaintiffs Michael Deasy and Kyle Louis Matthews’ (collectively “Plaintiffs”) motion for preliminary approval of class and representative action settlement is CONTINUED to July 10, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., in this department, for the following reason.

Paragraph 6.5 of the Settlement Agreement states:

6.5 Enjoining of Claims. The Preliminary Approval order will include a provision enjoining Class Members from filing claims before the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), or from initiating other proceedings regarding the Released Claims against the Released Parties until they opt out of the Settlement Class; this provision is intended to provide all Class Members the opportunity to participate in or to opt out of the Settlement, and to ensure finality of the Settlement and the Released Class Claims to the fullest extent permitted by law. (Yslas Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. 2.)

Blanket injunctions such as the one quoted above are generally not appropriate. “[A]n injunction against parallel litigation is rarely necessary: preclusion is that injunction.” (4 Newberg and Rubenstein on Class Actions (6th ed. June 2025 update) § 13:19 [emphasis added].) Further, such injunctions are especially inappropriate at the preliminary approval stage because “the court has not given notice to the class, not heard objections to the settlement, not weighed the settlement's strengths and weaknesses in an adversarial setting, and likely not finally certified a class . . . enjoining collateral litigation based on an interlocutory preliminary review order issued under a very low standard would be an extraordinary measure best reserved for extraordinary circumstances.” (Ibid.) The Newberg and Rubenstein treatise cautions that:

Courts should be on the lookout for such provisions and wary about signing them. Quite often, the presence of such a provision in a preliminary approval order is evidence that the parties are settling the present case precisely to enjoin collateral litigation, a practice that raises a red flag about whether the present settlement is a collusive suit aimed at foreclosing a stronger suit in the collateral forum. (Ibid.)

The Parties present no circumstances that demonstrate such an extraordinary injunction is appropriate here. Consequently, the Parties ask for a broad injunction with an unknown impact. The Court will not grant this request. The lift of the injunction on individuals who file valid requests for exclusion/opt out is not enough to dispel the issues created by the injunction. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are directed to submit a revised settlement agreement that omits paragraph 6.5 in its entirety.

Plaintiffs may file the revised settlement agreement or a supplemental brief of not more than 5

23CV005712: DEASY, et al. vs WMK, LLC, et al. 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

pages in length, if they wish to address above issue, by no later than June 29, 2026. Defendants may file a response of not more than 5 pages in length by no later than July 6, 2026.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8a at 916-874-5754 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.)

Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date.

If oral argument is requested, the parties may appear by Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16108301121 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16108301121

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 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 Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

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) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or further notice is necessary.

On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement scheduled for 05/22/2026 is continued to 07/10/2026 at 09:00 AM in Department 8A at Tani G.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005712: DEASY, et al. vs WMK, LLC, et al. 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 8A

Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.