BROOKS, et al. vs ATLAS DISPOSAL INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al.

Engaged in Unfair Business Practices. (Id., ¶ 10.) On April 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding all claims alleged in the PAGA Notice. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff now seeks preliminary approval of the Parties’ Class and PAGA Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). (Chrzan Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 1 (“SA”).) Plaintiff submitted the Agreement to the LWDA. (Id., ¶ 8, Exh. 4.)

Legal Standard

The law favors the settlement of lawsuits, particularly in class actions and other complex cases where substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, expense, and rigors of formal litigation. (See Neary v. Regents of Univ. of Cal (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273, 277-281; Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 19, 52.) However, a class action may not be dismissed, compromised, or settled without approval of the court, and the decision to approve or reject a proposed settlement is committed to the court’s sound discretion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769; Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234-35 (Wershba).)

In determining whether to approve a class settlement, the court’s responsibility is to “prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class” through settlement because the rights of the class members, including the named plaintiffs, “may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties.” (Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Kintetsu Enters. of Am. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 46, 60.) The court must independently determine “whether the settlement is in the best interests of those whose claims will be extinguished” and “make an independent assessment of the reasonableness of the terms to which the parties have agreed.” (Kullar v.

Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 130, 133.) The burden of establishing the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement is on the proponent. (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 245; see also 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135 1165-66.)

The Court does not rubber stamp these motions, but rather serves as a guardian of absent class members’ rights to ensure the settlement is fair. (Luckey v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 81, 95.) “Ultimately, the [trial] court’s determination is nothing more than ‘an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough justice.” (7-Eleven, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 1145.) “A settlement need not obtain 100 percent of the damages sought in order to be fair and reasonable. Compromise is inherent and necessary in the settlement process.

Thus, even if ‘the relief afforded by the proposed settlement is substantially narrower than it would be if the suits were to be successfully litigated,’ this is no bar to a class settlement because ‘the public interest may indeed be served by a voluntary settlement in which each side gives ground in the interest of avoiding litigation.’” (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 250, citations omitted.) The court’s primary objective for preliminary approval is to establish whether

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004770: BROOKS, et al. vs ATLAS DISPOSAL INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al. 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

to direct notice of the proposed settlement to the class, invite the class’s reaction, and schedule a final fairness hearing. (Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions (6th ed. 2025) § 13:10.)

Provisional Class Certification

If the class has not yet been certified, part of the motion for preliminary approval will include a request for provisional certification for purposes of settlement only. (See Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 3.769.) Although the provisional process is less demanding than a traditional motion for class certification, a trial court reviewing an application for preliminary approval of a settlement must still find that the normal class prerequisites have been met. (See Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625-627 (1997); in accord, Carter v. City of Los Angeles (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 808, 826.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks provisional certification of the following class: “all current and former employees of ADI who worked for ADI in a non-exempt position in California at any time during the Class Period.” (SA, ¶ 1.5.) The Class Period means the period from February 26, 2021, through February 1, 2026. (Id., ¶ 1.12.)

Plaintiff argues that provisional certification is appropriate because (1) the Class is ascertainable from Defendant’s payroll and employment records; (2) the Class of approximately 390 members is sufficiently numerous; (3) a well-defined community of interest exists because Class Members’ claims arise from Defendant’s uniform policies and present common questions capable of class wide resolution; (4) Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class because they arise from the same course of conduct and legal theories; (5) Plaintiff is an adequate representative because no conflicts exist between Plaintiff and the Class and Plaintiff has retained experienced Class Counsel; and (6) a class action is superior to individual litigation. (Mot., pp. 5:20-7:2.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments persuasive and provisionally certifies the Class for settlement purposes for the reasons specified in Plaintiff’s moving papers.

Class Representative and Class Counsel

Plaintiff is preliminarily appointed as Class Representative. (SA, ¶ 1.13.) Brian Zaghi and Zachary T. Chrzan of Zaghi & Chrzan, LLP are preliminarily appointed as Class Counsel. (Id., ¶ 1.6.)

Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable Settlement

Before approving a class action settlement, the Court must find that the settlement is “fair, adequate, and reasonable.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) The Court considers such factors as “the strength of plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expense, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004770: BROOKS, et al. vs ATLAS DISPOSAL INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al. 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement.” (Ibid.) “[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.” (Id., at p. 1802.)

Under the terms of the Agreement, Defendant denies liability, but agrees to pay a Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $605,340 to resolve Plaintiff’s claims. (SA, ¶¶ 1.22, 3.1, 12.1.) Defendant’s share of payroll taxes on the Wage Portions of the Individual Class Payments paid to Class Members shall be paid by Defendant separately from, and in addition to, the GSA. (Id., ¶ 1.22.) No portion of the GSA shall revert to Defendant. (Ibid.) The Administrator will disburse the entire GSA without asking or requiring Participating Class Members or Aggrieved Employees to submit any claim as a condition of payment. (Id., ¶ 3.1.) Defendant shall fully fund the GSA, and also fund the amounts necessary to fully pay Defendant’s share of payroll taxes, by transmitting the funds to the Administrator no later than 30 calendar days after the Effective Date.[1] (Id., ¶ 4.3.)

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA: - A Class Representative Service Payment that does not exceed $7,500. (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.) - A Class Counsel Fees Payment of not more than 35% of the GSA ($211,869), and a Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment of not more than $25,000. (Id., ¶ 3.2.2.) - An Administration Expenses Payment not to exceed $8,750, absent a showing of good cause and as approved by the Court. (Id., ¶ 3.2.3.) - PAGA Penalties in the amount of $20,000, with 65% ($13,000) allocated to the LWDA PAGA Payment and 35% ($7,000) allocated to the Individual PAGA Payments. (Id., ¶ 3.2.5.)

The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) – is approximately $332,221 and will be distributed to the Participating Class Members on a pro rata basis as Individual Class Payments. (SA, ¶¶ 1.28, 1.23.) An Individual Class Payment calculated by (a) dividing the NSA by the total number of Class Workweeks worked by all Participating Class Members and (b) multiplying the result by each Participating Class Member’s Class Workweeks. (Id., ¶ 3.2.4.) Similarly, the Aggrieved Employees’ share will be distributed on a pro rata basis. (Id., ¶ 1.24.) The Administrator will calculate each Individual PAGA Payment by (a) dividing the amount of the Aggrieved Employees’ 35% share of the PAGA Penalties by the total number of PAGA Pay Periods worked by all Aggrieved Employees and (b) multiplying the result by each Aggrieved Employee’s PAGA Pay Periods. (Id., ¶ 3.2.5.1.)

Within 14 days after Defendant funds the GSA, the Administrator will mail checks distributing the settlement funds. (SA, ¶ 4.4.) The Administrator will issue checks for the Individual Class

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004770: BROOKS, et al. vs ATLAS DISPOSAL INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al. 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Payments and/or Individual PAGA Payments and send them to the Class Members via First Class U.S. Mail. (Id., ¶ 4.4.1.) Before mailing any checks, the Administrator must update the recipients’ mailing addresses using the National Change of Address Database. (Ibid.) Within 7 days of receiving a returned check the Administrator must re-mail checks to the USPS forwarding address provided or to an address ascertained through the Class Member Address Search. (Id., ¶ 4.4.2.) The face of each check shall prominently state the date that the check will be voided, which shall be 180 days after the date of mailing. (Id., ¶ 4.4.1.)

If a Class Member’s Individual Class Payment check and/or Individual PAGA Payment check remains uncashed 120 days after its last mailing to the affected individual, the Administrator will send the individual a notice informing him or her that the check will expire and become non-negotiable if it is not cashed by the void date and offering to replace the check if it was lost or misplaced but not cashed. (Ibid.) For any Class Member whose Individual Class Payment or Individual PAGA Payment check is uncashed and cancelled after the void date, the Administrator shall transmit the funds represented by such checks to Legal Services of Northern California as the cy pres recipient. (Id., ¶ 4.4.3.)

The Parties, Class Counsel and Defense Counsel represent that they have no interest or relationship, financial or otherwise, with the intended cy pres recipient. (Ibid.; Chrzan Decl., ¶ 69.) At final approval, Plaintiff must file a declaration confirming that he has no relationship with the cy pres. For tax purposes, 20% of each Participating Class Member’s Individual Class Payment will be treated as a payment in settlement of the Participating Class Member’s claims for unpaid wages and will be reported by the Administrator on an IRS Form W-2. (SA, ¶ 3.2.4.1.)

The remaining 80% will be treated as a payment in settlement of the Participating Class Member’s claims for all expense reimbursement, interest and penalties, and will be reported on an IRS Form 1099. (Ibid.) The Administrator will report the Individual PAGA Payments on IRS Form 1099. (Id., ¶ 3.2.5.3.)

Not later than 30 days after the Court grants Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, Defendant will deliver the Class Data to the Administrator. (SA, ¶ 4.2.) Using best efforts to perform as soon as possible, and in no event later than 14 days after receiving the Class Data, the Administrator will send the Class Notice, with Spanish translation, to all Class Members identified in the Class Data, via first-class USPS mail. (Id., ¶ 7.4.2.) Not later than 3 business days after the Administrator’s receipt of any Class Notice returned by USPS as undelivered, the Administrator shall re-mail the Class Notice using any forwarding address provided by USPS. (Id., ¶ 7.4.3.)

If USPS does not provide a forwarding address, the Administrator shall conduct a Class Member Address Search and re-mail the Class Notice to the most current address obtained. (Ibid.) Class Members will have 60 days after the Administrator mails the Class Notice to Class Members to submit requests for exclusion, challenges to the calculation of workweeks and/or pay periods, and/or object to the settlement. (Id., ¶¶ 1.42, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6, 7.7.2.) Class Members who receive a re-mailed Notice shall have an additional 14 calendar days beyond the Response Deadline. (Id., ¶¶ 1.42, 7.4.4.)

“Effective on the date that Defendant fully funds the entire [GSA] and funds all employer payroll

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004770: BROOKS, et al. vs ATLAS DISPOSAL INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al. 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

taxes owed on the Wage Portion of the Individual Class Payments, Plaintiff, Participating Class Members, Aggrieved Employees, the LWDA, and Class Counsel will release claims against all Released Parties as follows:” - Plaintiff is subject to a general release. (SA, ¶¶ 5, 5.1.) - “In consideration for their awarded Class Member Payments, all Participating Class Members release any and all known and unknown claims against ADI and the other Released Parties that are asserted in the First Amended Complaint or arise out of or reasonably relate to the facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint that, during the Class Period, Defendant failed to pay all wages due, including minimum wages and overtime; pay split shift premiums and reporting time pay; provide meal periods, rest periods, and cooldown periods; pay meal period, rest period, and cooldown period premiums at the regular rate of pay; maintain accurate records; furnish accurate itemized wage statements; reimburse necessary business expenses; timely pay all wages due during employment and upon separation; and pay accrued unused vacation wages upon separation (the ‘Released Class Claims’ or ‘Release by Participating Class Members’).

The Released Class Claims include but are not limited to claims brought under California Labor Code sections 201-204, 218.6, 221, 226, 226.2 226.3, 226.7, 227.3, 510, 512, 558, 1174, 1174.5, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 2698 et seq., and 2802, California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. The Released Class Claims include claims for wages, statutory penalties, civil penalties, or other relief under the California Labor Code, including PAGA; relief from unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; attorneys’ fees and costs; and interest.” (Id., ¶¶ 5, 5.2.) - “In consideration for their awarded portions of the PAGA Civil Penalties, the State of California and all Aggrieved Employees release any and all known and unknown claims for civil penalties under PAGA against Defendant, and the other Released Parties that arise out of or reasonably relate to the allegations in the First Amended Complaint and/or PAGA Notice that, during the PAGA Period, Defendant failed to pay all wages due, including minimum wages and overtime; pay split shift premiums and reporting time pay; provide meal periods, rest periods, and cooldown periods; pay meal period, rest period, and cooldown period premiums at the regular rate of pay; provide suitable seating; maintain accurate records; furnish accurate itemized wage statements; reimburse necessary business expenses; provide and permit employees to use paid sick leave as required under applicable law; timely pay all wages due during employment and upon separation; timely pay wages owed to temporary workers; pay accrued unused vacation wages upon separation; furnish documents signed to obtain or hold employment; reimburse deposits made together with interest owed upon separation; comply with the notice requirements of the Wage Theft Protection Act of 2011; unlawfully deducted from wages; conducted unlawful background checks, placed unlawful restraints on competition, whistleblowing, freedom of speech, and/or lawful off-duty conduct; and maintained a policy or practice of improperly using salary history information in employment decisions and/or requiring unlawful waivers as a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004770: BROOKS, et al. vs ATLAS DISPOSAL INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al. 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

condition of employment (the ‘Released PAGA Claims’ or ‘PAGA Release’). The Released PAGA Claims include but are not limited to claims arising under California Labor Code sections 96, 98.6, 201-205.5, 210, 212, 221, 223, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 227.3, 232, 232.5, 245 et seq., 432 et seq., 510, 512, 558, 1102.5, 1174, 1174.5, 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1197.5, 1198.5, 2698 et seq., 2802, 2810.5, 3366, and 8397.4, California Business and Professions Code sections 16600 et seq., 16700 et seq., and 17200 et seq., California Government Code section 12952, and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. The PAGA Release applies to all Aggrieved Employees, and all Aggrieved Employees will receive an Individual PAGA Payment, regardless of whether they elect not to participate in the Settlement.” (Id., ¶¶ 5, 5.3.)

Generally, in cases involving both class and PAGA claims, the settlement should include separate releases for the Class Members and the Aggrieved Employees. The class release must be fairly tailored to the claims that were or reasonably could be asserted in the lawsuit based on the facts alleged in the complaint. (See Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 538-539 [“Releases must be appropriately tethered to the complaint’s factual allegations;” “[A] court cannot release claims that are outside the scope of the allegations of the complaint.”].) The PAGA release must be tethered to the PAGA claims that were or reasonably could have been alleged based on the facts alleged in the LWDA Notice. (See Id., at p. 541, fn. 5; Uribe v. Crown Building Maintenance Co. (2021) 70 Cap.App.5th 986, 1005.)

The Court has a number of concerns about the Agreement’s releases. First, Court does not understand the necessity or propriety of including language (i.e. “known or unknown”) that resembles a general release and a section 1542 waiver as to absent Class Members and/or Aggrieved Employees. Second, the Class release includes claims under PAGA, despite the separate PAGA release. That is duplicative and unnecessary. Regarding the PAGA release, the Court is concerned that it is not tethered to the factual allegations insofar as it refers to claims “that arise out of or reasonably relate to the allegations,” without reference to the facts.

Accordingly, the Court recommends that the emphasized language above be removed. The Court also recommends that the PAGA release be revised to cover claims “that arise out of or reasonably relate to the factual allegations ” The Parties shall be prepared to address the Court’s concerns, including whether they are agreeable to the proposed revisions.

Plaintiff’s moving papers demonstrate that the settlement was reached after sufficient investigation and arms-length negotiations. Shortly after Plaintiff filed this action, the Parties agreed to exchange informal discovery and attend early mediation. (Chrzan Decl., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff conducted extensive discovery in advance of mediation sufficient to evaluate the merits of the claims. (Id., ¶ 24.) Defendant produced: (1) Plaintiff’s personnel file and all documents maintained in Plaintiff’s name; (2) a representative sample of time and payroll data for 20% of the putative class; (3) class-wide data points, including the class list, dates of employment, and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004770: BROOKS, et al. vs ATLAS DISPOSAL INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al. 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

total workweeks and pay periods; (4) the number of separated employees relevant to potential waiting time penalty exposure; (5) purported arbitration agreements; and (6) relevant wage and hour policies, practices, and procedures, including employee handbooks. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s Counsel conducted a detailed review and analysis, and also retained an expert who reviewed the data and provided an independent analysis to assist in evaluating liability, damages, and risks. (Id., ¶ 25.)

On December 23, 2025, the Parties mediated before Nikki Tolt, an experienced mediator in complex labor and employment matters. (Chrzan Decl., ¶ 11.) Following extensive negotiations – both during the mediation and in the weeks that followed – and in acceptance of a mediator’s proposal, the Parties reached an agreement in principle, which was subsequently memorialized in a written Memorandum of Understanding and, ultimately, the Agreement. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff estimated Defendant’s exposure as follows:

Claim Maximum Exposure Discount Realistic Exposure Unpaid Wages for Failure to $499,954.79 90% $49,995.48 Pay for Off-the-Clock Work Non-Compliant Meal Periods $861,662.24 90% $86,166.22 Non-Compliant Rest Periods $1,491,917.25 90% $149,191.73 Wage Statement Violations $699,600 90% $69,960.00 Failure to Reimburse for $302,670.00 90% $30,267.00 Business Expenses Waiting Time Penalties $1,785,292.80 90% $178,529.28 PAGA $699,600[2] -- $20,000

Total: $6,340,697.08 $584,109.71

(Chrzan Decl., ¶¶ 40-64.) Plaintiff adequately describes the claims, Defendant’s defenses, the risks of continued litigation, and the underlying assumptions and methodology used to calculate the figures above. (Id., ¶¶ 32-64.) The GSA represents approximately 9.55% of Defendant’s maximum exposure and exceeds Defendant’s realistic exposure.

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Chrzan Decl., ¶¶ 80-90; Zaghi Decl., ¶¶ 3-9.) Counsel attests to their belief that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Chrzan Decl., ¶¶ 91, 95; Zaghi Decl., ¶ 14.) Based on the foregoing, the Court preliminarily finds, subject to the final fairness hearing, that the Settlement is within the ballpark of reasonableness and that all relevant factors support preliminary approval.

PAGA Payment

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004770: BROOKS, et al. vs ATLAS DISPOSAL INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al. 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

The Agreement provides for the payment of PAGA Penalties in the amount of $20,000, with 65% ($13,000) allocated to the LWDA PAGA Payment and 35% ($7,000) allocated to the Aggrieved Employees as Individual PAGA Payments. (SA, ¶ 3.2.5.) The Aggrieved Employees are “all current and former employees of ADI who worked for ADI in a non-exempt position in California at any time during the PAGA Period.” (Id., ¶ 1.4.) The PAGA Period means the period from February 26, 2024 through the date of Preliminary Approval. (Id., ¶ 1.34.) As discussed above, the Aggrieved Employees’ portion will be allocated on a pro rata basis and the Aggrieved Employees are subject to a separate release. (Id., ¶¶ 3.2.5.1, 5.3.) The Agreement makes clear that Aggrieved Employees cannot opt out of the Agreement. (Id., ¶ 7.5.4.)

Defendant’s maximum PAGA exposure is $699,600, assuming 6,996 pay periods, an initial penalty, and no stacking. Counsel discounted potential exposure based on several factors, including: (1) the derivative nature of many of the PAGA claims; (2) Defendant’s FMCSA preemption arguments, which, if successful, could eliminate the predicate violations; (3) the risk that a court would exercise its discretion under Labor Code section 2699(e)(2) to substantially reduce any assessed penalties; and (4) the uncertainty of establishing uniform violations across the PAGA period. The PAGA allocation represents approximately 2.86% of Defendant’s maximum exposure. The Court finds the PAGA allocation reasonable under the circumstances and is entitled to a presumption of fairness and it is preliminarily approved.

Proposed Class Notice

The notice to Class Members must fairly apprise the prospective members of the terms of the settlement without expressing an opinion on the merits of the settlement. (7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1164; see also Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769.) “Whether a claimant would want to accept or reject the proposed settlement is a decision to be made by him independently and without influence or pressure from those competing parties who either favor or oppose the settlement.” (Phila. Hous. Auth. v. Am. Radiator & Std. Sanitary Corp. (E.D. Pa. 1970) 323 F.Supp. 364, 378.)

The proposed Notice fairly describes the settlement. (SA, Exh. A (“Notice”).) However, the following issues must be addressed: - If the Parties accept the Court’s proposed revisions to the releases, the Notice must be revised accordingly. (Id., pp. 6-7.) - The Notice should inform Participating Class Members that if they desire to appear remotely at the final approval hearing, they can join via the Department’s Zoom link or phone number and provide the following access information for the appropriate Department in the Notice: To join by Zoom link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16184738886; To join by phone: (833) 568-8864 / ID: 16184738886.

With these revisions, the Notice is approved.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004770: BROOKS, et al. vs ATLAS DISPOSAL INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al. 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

The Agreement provides for a Class Counsel Fees Payment of not more than 35% of the GSA ($211,869), and a Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment of not more than $25,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.2.) Plaintiff argues that the requested fee award is “routinely requested and approved in wage and hour class actions in California and reflects the contingent nature of the representation, the risks undertaken by Class Counsel, and the result achieved for the Class.” (Mot., p. 17:21-25.)

The Court notes that the attorney fee award sought is higher than the average recognized by some authorities or typically awarded by this Court. (See Newberg, supra, § 15:83 [noting average hovers around 25%]; Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 558 & fn. 13; Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 66 n.11 [noting average around one-third of recovery].)

Nonetheless, the requested award is preliminarily approved. In moving for final approval, the Court expects Counsel to support their arguments with respect to this amount, including by providing information necessary to perform a lodestar analysis. (See In re Activision Sec. Litigation (N.D. Cal. 1989) 723 F.Supp. 1373, 1379; Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 557-58 & fn. 13.; Martin v. Ameripride Servs. (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2011), 2011 WL 2313604 at *22 (collecting cases); Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc. (E.D. Cal 2010) 266 F.R.D. 482, 491 (same); see also Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 66 & n.11.)

The Court also preliminarily approves the Agreement’s costs allocation with the expectation that Counsel will provide a declaration, in moving for final approval, that shows actual costs.

Settlement Administrator

The Agreement designates Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions (“Phoenix”) as Settlement Administrator and provides for an Administration Expenses Payment not to exceed $8,750, absent a showing of good cause and as approved by the Court. (SA, ¶¶ 1.2, 3.2.3.) Phoenix attests that its fees will not exceed $8,750. (Lawrence Decl., ¶ 22, Exh. B.)

Phoenix is appointed as Settlement Administrator and the allocation is reasonable and preliminarily approved.

Class Representative Service Payment

The Agreement provides for a Class Representative Service Payment that does not exceed $7,500. (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.) Plaintiff describes his efforts and estimates that he spent at least 22 hours

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004770: BROOKS, et al. vs ATLAS DISPOSAL INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al. 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

assisting with this case. (Brooks Decl., ¶¶ 10-17.)

The requested service payment is preliminarily approved.

Impact on Pending Litigation

Plaintiff notes that Defendant has represented to Class Counsel that the plaintiffs in the related action Forst v. Atlas Disposal Industries, Inc. (Case No. 25CV004645) intend to resolve their claims on an individual basis. (Mot., p. 18:14-18; Chrzan Decl., ¶ 79.) The Court is aware that the Parties in the Forst action have made a similar representation.

Compliance Hearing

The Court sets a Compliance Hearing for June 5, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. No later than May 29, 2026, Plaintiff shall file a revised Class Notice and redline copy for the Court’s review. If the Parties agree with the Court’s proposed revisions to the Agreement, the Parties shall also provide proof of the Agreement’s amendment and submission to the LWDA.

Plaintiff shall also separately file a revised Proposed Order for the Court’s signature.

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

Final Approval Hearing

The Court will again review and consider the terms of this settlement at the time of the final approval hearing. The Court sets a Final Approval Hearing for November 20, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. If either party is unavailable on that date, the parties shall meet and confer to identify three other Fridays at 9:00 a.m. that work for the parties to schedule the hearing. They shall then submit those dates to the Court via email at Dept8B@saccourt.ca.gov, and the Court will reschedule the hearing accordingly.

The briefing shall be filed in conformity with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

[1] The “Effective Date” means “the date by when both of the following have occurred: (a) the

Court enters a Judgment on its Order Granting Final Approval of the Settlement; and (b) the Judgment is final. The Judgment is final as of the latest of the following occurrences: (a) if no Participating Class Member objects to the Settlement, the day the Court enters Judgment; (b) if one or more Participating Class Members objects to the Settlement, the day after the deadline for filing a notice of appeal from the Judgment; or if a timely appeal from the Judgment is filed, the day after the appellate court affirms the Judgment and issues a remittitur.” (SA, ¶ 1.18.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004770: BROOKS, et al. vs ATLAS DISPOSAL INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al. 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B [2] Counsel does not provide a maximum exposure. Instead, Counsel attests that “Counsel

considered the 6,996 pay periods during the PAGA period, the availability of initial and subsequent penalties, and the possibility of stacking penalties across multiple Labor Code provisions.” (Chrzan Decl., ¶ 63.) The Court assumes an initial penalty and the inability to stack penalties to arrive at a maximum exposure of $699,600. Counsel is expected to provide complete information for the Court’s review.

The Court has ordered the Parties’ appearance. 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

Parties requesting services of a court reporter may 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. The list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore is available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/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.

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 parties to review this website regularly to stay abreast of the most recent complex civil case

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV004770: BROOKS, et al. vs ATLAS DISPOSAL INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al. 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Class Action in Department 8B

procedures. Please refer to the website before directly contacting the Court Clerk for information.