Sykes Vs Sykes

RG19008535: Perryman VS Lush Cosmetics LLC 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Preliminary Approval in Department 23 Tentative Ruling - 07/17/2024 Michael Markman The Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement filed by Amelia Perryman on 04/22/2024 is Granted. BACKGROUND This is a wage-and-hour class action and PAGA representative action. Plaintiff Amelia Perryman and defendant Lush Cosmetics LLC have agreed to settle the claims for a gross settlement amount of $1,800,000.00, which includes up to $599,999.99 in attorney’s fees; up to $45,000.00 in litigation costs and expenses incurred by counsel; an enhancement of $10,000.00 for plaintiff; settlement administration costs of up to $29,400.00, and $20,00.00 in PAGA civil penalties (75% of penalties go to California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and 25% to aggrieved employees). The remaining amount is to be distributed among participating class members in proportion to the number of pay periods worked by each. LEGAL STANDARD To prevent “fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class, the settlement or dismissal of a class action requires court approval.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800.) The Court “must determine the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.” (Id. at p. 1801.) “The well-recognized factors that the trial court should consider in evaluating the reasonableness of a class action settlement agreement include ‘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 amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.’” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 128 [quoting Dunk, supra, at p. 1801].) Similarly, 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.” (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77 [noting overlap of factors in class action analysis, “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”].) PRELIMINARY APPROVAL Plaintiffs’ counsel investigated and obtained information from defendant, conducted interviews and a deposition, and analyzed defendants’ policies and sample time and payroll records. (See Setareh Decl., ¶ 14.) The parties then participated in an arm’s length mediation. (See id., ¶ 15.) Plaintiff includes an adequate Kullar analysis, providing a reasonable estimate of SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA RG19008535: Perryman VS Lush Cosmetics LLC 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Preliminary Approval in Department 23 the number of class members, the total estimated possible recovery, and an explanation why the settlement was reasonable in light thereof. (See id., ¶ 16.) The terms of the settlement and notice procedures appear generally fair, reasonable and adequate. SERVICE AWARD, FEES, & COSTS The court will not rule on a service award for the representative plaintiff, fees, or costs until final approval but provides the following preliminary guidance: Any incentive or service award must be supported with “quantification of time and effort expended on the litigation, and in the form of reasoned explanation of financial or other risks incurred by the named plaintiffs.” (Clark v. Am. Residential Servs. LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 807.) This court is unlikely to approve an award of more than $7,500.00 absent special circumstances. The settlement agreement authorizes counsel to seek fees of up to one-third of the gross settlement amount. This court’s benchmark for the percentage of recovery approach is 30%. (See Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 495; Schulz v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1167, 1175; Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 557 fn 13; Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 66 fn 11.) A “court approving a settlement that includes a negotiated fee [] is required to decide if the fee negotiated by the parties closely approximates the value of the attorneys’ work.” (Robbins v. Alibrandi, 127 Cal.App.4th 438, 452.) Counsel must address the value of the attorneys’ work, as well as the justification for any deviation from this court’s benchmark, in the fee application. Ten percent of the attorney’s fee award must be kept in the administrator’s trust fund until the completion of the distribution process and court approval of a final accounting. The settlement agreement authorizes reimbursement of litigation costs. Counsel must provide evidentiary support for the actual costs incurred at the time of final approval. The court’s preference is for Plaintiffs to move for final approval, for attorneys’ fees and costs, and for plaintiff’s enhancement payment in a single motion. ORDER Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement GRANTED. The court will sign the second amended proposed order filed on July 16, 2024. Within five (5) days of notice of entry of this order, plaintiffs’ counsel must submit a declaration attaching the PAGA notice letter referenced in paragraph 10 of Setareh Declaration. HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH eCOURT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA RG19008535: Perryman VS Lush Cosmetics LLC 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Preliminary Approval in Department 23 Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK (dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. Notice via BOTH eCourt AND email is required. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.

22CV007673: CAMPOS vs GRINDSTONE ENTERPRISE LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion for Order Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement; filed by ANA LILI CAMPOS (Plaintiff) in Department 23 Tentative Ruling - 07/17/2024 Michael Markman The Hearing on Motion for Order Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement; filed by ANA LILI CAMPOS (Plaintiff) scheduled for 07/18/2024 is continued to 08/08/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 23 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse . BACKGROUND This is a wage-and-hour class action and PAGA representative action. Plaintiff Ana Lili Campos and defendant Grindstone Enterprise LLC have agreed to settle the claims for a gross settlement amount of $37,000.00, which includes $12,333.33 in attorney’s fees; up to $4,000.00 in litigation costs and expenses incurred by counsel; an enhancement of $5,000.00 for plaintiff; settlement administration costs of up to $2,000.00, and $2,500.00 in PAGA civil penalties (75% of penalties go to California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and 25% to aggrieved employees). The remaining amount is to be distributed among participating class members in proportion to the number of pay periods worked by each. LEGAL STANDARD To prevent “fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class, the settlement or dismissal of a class action requires court approval.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800.) A court “must determine the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.” (Id. at p. 1801.) “The well-recognized factors that the trial court should consider in evaluating the reasonableness of a class action settlement agreement include ‘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 amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, the presence of a governmental participant, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.’” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 128 [quoting Dunk, supra, at p. 1801].) Similarly, 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.” (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77 [noting overlap of factors in class action analysis, “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”].) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22CV007673: CAMPOS vs GRINDSTONE ENTERPRISE LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion for Order Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement; filed by ANA LILI CAMPOS (Plaintiff) in Department 23 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL Plaintiffs’ counsel investigated, obtained information from defendant, and analyzed defendants’ wage and hour policies, time and payroll records, and copies of the individual settlement agreements that defendant reached with all putative class members after plaintiff initiated this lawsuit. (See Payne Decl., ¶¶ 17–18, 38.) The parties then participated in an arm’s length mediation. (See id., ¶¶ 19, 39.) Plaintiff includes an adequate Kullar analysis, providing a reasonable estimate of the number of class members, the total estimated possible recovery, and an explanation why the settlement was reasonable in light thereof. (See id., ¶¶ 40–67.) The terms of the settlement and notice procedures appear generally fair, reasonable and adequate. Plaintiff, however, must make the following adjustments before obtaining preliminary approval: First, the parties must revise the PAGA release. (See Payne Decl., Ex. 1 [Settlement Agreement], § 5.3 & Notice § 3.10.) A PAGA representative is acting “acting as a proxy or agent” of the LWDA, and many appellate decisions have clarified that a PAGA claim is brought on behalf of the state, rather than individuals. (Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 1104, 1113; see also, e.g., Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 81.) As currently drafted, the Settlement Agreement purports to release claims of “Aggrieved Employees.” This error is unlikely to have practical consequences in the context of settlement, but the court does not want to perpetuate any confusion by approving a settlement that inaccurately implies that PAGA claims are released by anyone other the LWDA through its authorized agents, i.e., the named plaintiff(s). If the intent of the parties is to settle the claims of the LWDA, then the settlement agreement must state expressly that the plaintiff, as proxy and agent of the LWDA, is releasing the claims of the LWDA. Furthermore, the scope of the LWDA’s release must be limited to the scope of PAGA notice letter. (LaCour v. Marshalls of California, LLC, 94 Cal.App. 5th 1172, 1192–97 [notice letter is “objective source of proof for the scope” of PAGA plaintiff’s “authorized enforcement interest”].) The Settlement Agreement suggests that the PAGA release extends to cover claims stated in the operative complaint. Such a release is overbroad. Plaintiff must also provide the court with a copy of the PAGA notice letter sent to the LWDA. Second, the parties must designate to a nonprofit organization or foundation that supports “projects that will benefit the class or similarly situated persons,” or that promotes “the law consistent with the objectives and purposes of the underlying cause of action, to child advocacy programs, or to nonprofit organizations providing civil legal services to the indigent” as the recipient of any unclaimed funds. (Code Civ. Proc., § 384, subd. (b).) “It is the policy of the State of California to ensure that the unpaid cash residue and unclaimed or abandoned funds in class action litigation are distributed, to the fullest extent possible, in a manner designed either to further the purposes of the underlying class action or causes of action, or to promote justice for all Californians.” (Id., § 384, subd. (a).) The court is not persuaded that sending the funds to the Unclaimed Property Fund is in line with the state’s policy, as the money is not likely to reach the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22CV007673: CAMPOS vs GRINDSTONE ENTERPRISE LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion for Order Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement; filed by ANA LILI CAMPOS (Plaintiff) in Department 23 relevant employees or an appropriate beneficiary. (See Payne Decl., Ex. 1 [Settlement Agreement], § 4.43 & Notice §§ 3.5, 10.) Counsel must provide section 382.4 declarations, if applicable. Third, section 9 of the proposed notice should include the following language: The pleadings and other records in this litigation may be examined online on the Alameda County Superior Court’s website, known as “eCourt Public Portal,” at https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov. After arriving at the website, click the “Search” tab at the top of the page, then select the Document Downloads link, enter the case number and click “Submit.” Images of every document filed in the case may be viewed at a minimal charge. You may also view images of every document filed in the case free of charge by using one of the computer terminal kiosks available at each court location that has a facility for civil filings. SERVICE AWARD, FEES, & COSTS The court will not rule on a service award for the representative plaintiff, fees, or costs until final approval but provides the following preliminary guidance: The requested service award is within this court’s generally accepted range, but any incentive award must be supported with “quantification of time and effort expended on the litigation, and in the form of reasoned explanation of financial or other risks incurred by the named plaintiffs.” (Clark v. Am. Residential Servs. LLC (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 785, 807.) The settlement agreement authorizes counsel to seek fees of up to one-third of the gross settlement amount. This court’s benchmark for the percentage of recovery approach is 30%. (See Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 495; Schulz v. Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1167, 1175; Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 557 fn 13; Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 66 fn 11.) A “court approving a settlement that includes a negotiated fee [] is required to decide if the fee negotiated by the parties closely approximates the value of the attorneys’ work.” (Robbins v. Alibrandi, 127 Cal.App.4th 438, 452.) Counsel must address the value of the attorneys’ work, as well as the justification for any deviation from this court’s benchmark, in the fee application. Ten percent of the attorney’s fee award must be kept in the administrator’s trust fund until the completion of the distribution process and court approval of a final accounting. The settlement agreement authorizes reimbursement of litigation costs. Counsel must SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22CV007673: CAMPOS vs GRINDSTONE ENTERPRISE LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion for Order Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement; filed by ANA LILI CAMPOS (Plaintiff) in Department 23 provide evidentiary support for the actual costs incurred at the time of final approval. The court’s preference is for Plaintiffs to move for final approval, for attorneys’ fees and costs, and for plaintiff’s enhancement payment in a single motion. ORDER Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is CONTINUED to August 15, 2024 at 10:00 am in Department 23. At least five (5) court days before the continued hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel must submit a revised proposed order and declaration addressing the issues noted above and suggesting a date, a Thursday at 10:00 am, for the final approval hearing. To the extent the settlement agreement and/or notice are revised, counsel should submit the revised documents as fully executed versions and in redline. HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH eCOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK (dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. Notice via BOTH eCourt AND email is required. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.

RG18905515: Smith LLP, a California Limited Liability Partnersh VS Patel 07/16/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other NOTICE OF MOTION BY JUDGMENT CREDITOR FOR AN ASSIGMENT ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES & DECLARATION OF MATT KEEPERMAN IN SUPPORT THEREOF; filed by The National Collection Agency Inc (Assignee) in Department 22 Tentative Ruling - 07/11/2024 Brad Seligman The Motion for Order Notice of Motion by Judgment Creditor for an Assignment Order filed by The National Collection Agency Inc on 07/03/2024 is Granted. Judgment creditor The National Collection Agency, Inc.’s (“National”) Unopposed Motion for Assignment Order is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.510, subd. (a).) On May 2, 2024, an Acknowledgment of Assignment of Judgment was filed assigning judgment from Plaintiff Smith LLP to National. (Register of Actions (“ROA”).) The current judgment entered against Defendant Mukesh “Mac” Patel (“Defendant”) is $134,891.25. On May 21, 2024, a wage garnishment was served on NextGen Flight Academy (“NextGen”) that is owned by Defendant. (Keeperman Decl. ¶ 2; Exh. A.) NextGen’s Return indicates that Defendant is NextGen’s owner and therefore not on payroll. (Ibid.) National’s unopposed motion for an assignment is therefore granted. The judgment owed by Defendant in the amount of $134,891.25 is hereby assigned to National. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.510, subd. (a).) HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH eCOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK (dept22@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and all the other SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA RG18905515: Smith LLP, a California Limited Liability Partnersh VS Patel 07/16/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other NOTICE OF MOTION BY JUDGMENT CREDITOR FOR AN ASSIGMENT ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES & DECLARATION OF MATT KEEPERMAN IN SUPPORT THEREOF; filed by The National Collection Agency Inc (Assignee) in Department 22 parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. Notice via BOTH eCourt AND email is required. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.

23CV029106: HENRIQUEZ vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel MTC re. PMQ; filed by JIMMY HENRIQUEZ (Plaintiff) in Department 517 Tentative Ruling - 07/12/2024 Keith Fong [JL] CASE NAME and NO.: 23CV029106 MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance HEARING DATE: 7/18/2024 DEPT: 517 JUDICIAL OFFICER: Fong PROPOSED TENTATIVE Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance is DENIED. DISCUSSION Plaintiff brings this action under the Song-Beverly Act (“SBA”). Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that a “used” vehicle is outside the scope of the SBA. On 5/21/2024, the Court issued an order in connection with the motion. The Court noted that the issue of whether the SBA covers used vehicles currently is before the California Supreme Court in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal. App. 5th 209, review granted July 13, 2022, S274625. The Order states: “Given that the Supreme Court’s decision will have a direct impact on this case dispositive issue, the Court STAYS the instant action pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez.” In view of the stay order, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is premature. In addition, Plaintiff did not comply with Local Rule 3.31, which requires that the parties schedule an Informal Discovery Conference before filing a discovery motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied without prejudice. HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV029106: HENRIQUEZ vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel MTC re. PMQ; filed by JIMMY HENRIQUEZ (Plaintiff) in Department 517 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Searchâ€� 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Rulingâ€� 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceedâ€� BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing. BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW. Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812 Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose) Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d Join by SIP 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812

23CV046068: JOHNSON, et al. vs THOMAS 07/15/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by Matthew Thomas (Defendant) in Department 19 Tentative Ruling - 07/09/2024 Joscelyn Jones The Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - | moving party, | motion filed by Matthew Thomas on 05/16/2024 is Withdrawn. Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery is DROPPED from the July 15, 2024 calendar by the moving party. (See Notice of Taking Motion Off Calendar filed June 21, 2024.)

23CV042138: GRANADOS vs KAPOOR 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) in Department 15 Tentative Ruling - 07/17/2024 Peter Borkon The Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and / or Default Judgment filed by Sanjeev Kapoor on 06/25/2024 is Denied. Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment is DENIED. This case was filed on August 29, 2023. Plaintiff purportedly served Defendant with the summons and complaint, via substitute service, on September 30, 2023. Plaintiff had Defendant’s default entered on January 31, 2024 and obtained default judgment against Defendant on April 8, 2024. Defendant filed this motion on June 25, 2024. Defendant denies that he was served with the summons and complaint via substitute service. However, Defendant fails to demonstrate that the default and default judgment were taken against him as a result of his mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. As evidenced by Defendant’s declaration, he was aware of this lawsuit on January 16, 2024, and he received a complete copy of the Complaint from the court clerk’s office on January 22, 2024. That was nine days prior to entry of his default. However, Defendant apparently believed, based on his prior experience in small claims court, that he did not need to file any response to the Complaint, but instead could simply appear at the next scheduled hearing date. Defendant didn’t consult an attorney about this case until May 22, nearly a month after he received notice of the entry of default judgment on April 26. (See Defendant’s declaration at paragraphs 21 and 42.) Before a party can obtain relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), he must show that in arranging for his defense, he exercised such reasonable diligence as a man of ordinary prudence would. (See Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1413.) One who voluntarily represents himself is not entitled to “turn back the clock if the experiment yields an adverse result.” (Id.) Instead, when a litigant accepts the risk of proceeding without counsel, he or she is stuck with the outcome and has no greater opportunity to cast off an unfavorable judgment that he or she would if represented by counsel. (Id.) The Court rejects Defendant’s argument that the default judgment is void based on Plaintiff’s failure to serve Defendant with a damages statement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11. This case does not seek damages for a personal injury or wrongful death. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege or seek any such damages, nor did the default judgment award any. Contrary to Defendant’s argument, the default judgment did NOT award any damages for emotional distress damages; instead, it found any such claims “not supported by law or evidence” and declined to award those damages. Finally, Defendant fails to provide legal authority that Plaintiff’s failure to serve the January 23, 2024 Case Management Order on him is a basis to vacate the default or default judgment. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV042138: GRANADOS vs KAPOOR 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) in Department 15

RG21089519: Ramirez-Vivar VS Grifols Diagnostic Solutions, INC. et al. 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by Alfonso Ramirez- Vivar (Plaintiff) in Department 23 Tentative Ruling - 07/17/2024 Michael Markman Parties to appear. Subject to any consideration of any objections raised at the hearing, the court tentatively grants the motion for final approval. Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16061942036 Meeting ID: 160 6194 2036 --- One tap mobile +16692545252,,16061942036# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16061942036# US (US Spanish Line) BACKGROUND FACTS This is a wage-and-hour class action and PAGA representative action. Plaintiff Alfonso Ramirez-Vivar and defendants Grifols Diagnostic Solutions Inc. and Grifols Shared Services North America, Inc. have agreed to settle the class claims for a gross settlement amount of $400,000.00, which includes up to $164,240.00 in attorney’s fees; up to $50,000.00 in costs and expenses incurred by counsel; a class representative enhancement of $10,000.00; settlement administration costs of up to $9,000.00, and $25,000.00 in PAGA civil penalties (75% of penalties go to California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and 25% to aggrieved employees). The remaining amount is to be distributed among participating class members in proportion to the number of weeks worked during the period. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 21, 2024. LEGAL STANDARD To prevent “fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class, the settlement or dismissal of a class action requires court approval.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1800.) A court “must determine the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.” (Id. at p. 1801.) 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.’” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 128 [quoting Dunk, supra, at p. 1801].) Similarly, 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.” (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 77 [noting overlap of factors in class action SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA RG21089519: Ramirez-Vivar VS Grifols Diagnostic Solutions, INC. et al. 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by Alfonso Ramirez- Vivar (Plaintiff) in Department 23 analysis, “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”].) DISCUSSION In this case, the parties mediated and reached settlement after arm’s length negotiations, counsel conducted sufficient investigation and discovery to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently, counsel cites significant experience in litigating class actions, and the settlement administrator received no objections in response to the class notice. (See Perez Decl., ¶¶ 5, 7– 13, 14–22; Cutler Decl., ¶ 7.) The motion is unopposed. ORDER Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. A final compliance hearing is set for March 27, 2025 at 10:00 am in Department 23. Plaintiff is ordered to file a final report and declaration regarding distribution at least five (5) court days before the compliance hearing. Class counsel shall hold 10% of the attorneys’ fees award in an interest-bearing account until the completion of the distribution process and court approval of a final accounting. No appearances will be required if the report and declaration establish that the distributions are complete. HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH eCOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK (dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA RG21089519: Ramirez-Vivar VS Grifols Diagnostic Solutions, INC. et al. 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by Alfonso Ramirez- Vivar (Plaintiff) in Department 23 Notice via BOTH eCourt AND email is required. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.

HG20062148: Castellanos-Claudio VS Rizzo-Gutierrez 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside Notice of Settlement and Request to Re-Set case for Trial; filed by Wendy Castellanos-Claudio (Plaintiff) in Department 517 Tentative Ruling - 07/17/2024 Karin Schwartz The Motion re: PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND SET THE CASE FOR TRIAL filed by Wendy Castellanos- Claudio on 06/05/2024 is Granted. The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the notice of settlement is GRANTED. Plaintiff did not provide her counsel with express authority to settle this case for the amount previously agreed upon during the February 2024 mediation. (Masihi Dec. Paras. 7-8.) Thus, settlement has not been effectuated. The 2/13/24 Notice of Settlement is set aside. Parties are ORDERED TO APPEAR to re-set trial and pre-trial dates. HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing. BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA HG20062148: Castellanos-Claudio VS Rizzo-Gutierrez 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside Notice of Settlement and Request to Re-Set case for Trial; filed by Wendy Castellanos-Claudio (Plaintiff) in Department 517 Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812 Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose) Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d Join by SIP 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812