Preview
1
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
CIVIL
TENTATIVE RULINGS - July 28, 2021
EVENT DATE: 07/29/2021 EVENT TIME: 01:30:00 PM DEPT.: 41
JUDICIAL OFFICER:
CASE NO.: 34-2018-00247272-CU-OE-GDS
CASE TITLE: BOUDREAU VS. PRIMERITUS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Other employment
EVENT TYPE: Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - Complex
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:
The Court issues the following tentative ruling for the hearing on July 29, 2021, regarding the motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement filed by Plaintiff John Boudreau, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated. No oppositions have been filed.
While the Court's ruling tentatively indicates that it will grant preliminary approval of the class action
settlement, subject to certain conditions, the Court must still hold a hearing on the motion as it may
involve the receipt of evidence. Although the Court anticipates that no party will request oral argument,
and while no class member indicated any intent to appear at the hearing, this does not relieve the parties
from appearing at the hearing or otherwise render the instant ruling final in the event oral argument is not
requested. The Court will not render a final ruling until it holds the preliminary approval hearing. Any and
all appearances for the hearing must be made via Zoom. To request oral argument on this matter, you
must call the Court at (916) 874-5661 (Department 41) by 4:00 p.m., the Court day before this hearing
and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. (Local Rule 1.06.)
Parties requesting services of a court reporter shall advise the Court at (916) 874-6353 no later than 4:00
p.m. the court day before the hearing. Please be advised there is a $30.00 fee for court reporting
services, which must be paid at the time of the hearing, for each civil proceeding lasting less than one
hour. (Govt. Code § 68086(a)(1)(A).) The Court Reporter will not report any proceeding unless a request
is made and the requisite fees are paid in advance of the hearing.
Notice: Given the circumstances presented by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, this hearing will be
conducted remotely via Zoom [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options].
The Department 41 Zoom link is: https://saccourt.zoom.us/my/dept41a.
The Zoom ID is: 349 373 7884.
The Zoom number is (888) 475-4499.
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is unopposed and is GRANTED, as
set forth below.
By this motion, Plaintiff class counsel requests that the Court (1) provisionally and conditionally certify
Event ID: 2568674 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.:
Page: 1
CASE TITLE: BOUDREAU VS. PRIMERITUS CASE NUMBER: 34-2018-00247272-CU-OE-GDS
FINANCIAL SERVICES INC
the proposed settlement class; (2) preliminarily appoint named plaintiff John Boudreau as class
representative for purposes of settlement; (3) preliminarily appoint Alejandro Gutierrez, Daniel Palay,
and Brian Hefelfinger as class counsel for purposes of settlement; (4) preliminarily approve the proposed
class action settlement amount of $3.9 million; (5) preliminarily approve application for payment to class
counsel of attorney fees in the amount of $1.365 million (35% of the Gross Settlement Amount); (6)
preliminarily approve application for payment to class counsel of reasonable costs not to exceed
$25,000.00; (7) preliminarily and conditionally approve payment of class representative enhancement to
John Boudreau in the amount of $25,000.00; (8) appoint Simpluris as the Claims Administrator, at a cost
of up to $5,400.00, to perform all necessary administrative claim and payment tasks; (9) preliminarily
approve settlement of claims under the Private Attorney General Act to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency in the amount of $100,000.00, with a remainder payment of $25,000.00 included
in the Net Settlement Amount for distribution to the proposed settlement class; (10) approve as to form
and content the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement, and Hearing Date for Final Court Approval
of Settlement ("Class Notice") and Disbursement Form; (11) approve proposed procedures to notify the
class and determine that the proposed procedures comply with due process and direct the Class Notice
and Disbursement Form to be mailed by first class mail to the class members; and, (12) preliminarily and
conditionally approve and adopt the Proposed Order and the schedule stated therein.
The Court is requested to preliminary certify this matter as a class action, on behalf of "[A]ll non-exempt
current and former employees of Primeritus who were employed by Primeritus in California during the
Class Period December 27, 2014 to August 12, 2019, and who held the position of Investigator/skip
tracer" and participated in the Incentive Pay Plan that was the subject of the Action. (See Gutierrez Decl.
¶ 13.)
Plaintiff John Boudreau, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, filed his complaint in this
action on December 27, 2018; the First amended Complaint was filed on April 12, 2019. The operative
FAC alleges seven causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage (Labor Code §§ 1194, 226.2); (2)
Failure to Timely Pay Wages (Labor Code §§ 201-203); (3) Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods
(Labor Code § 226.7); (4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Pay Meal Premiums (Labor Code §
226.7); (5) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements (Labor Code §§ 226, 226.2; (6) Unfair
Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.); and (7) Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
(PAGA) (Labor Code § 2699 et seq.)
As generally noted above, the essential settlement terms are as follows:
- Defendant shall pay a maximum Gross Settlement Amount (GSA) of $3.9 million; the payments shall
be split into two payments of $2.5 million on or before February 1, 2022, and $1.4 million paid on or
before July 1, 2022. The PAGA payment, Service Payment and administrative fees incurred as of the
time of the first payment shall be paid in full from the first payment; the remainder shall be distributed to
pro rata to Class Members and then to Class Counsel. The remaining payments shall be paid from the
second payment. Defendant shall be responsible for the employer's share of payroll taxes. None of the
GSA shall revert to Defendants. (Settl. Agr. at Section D.)
- An amount up to $25,000 shall be paid to Plaintiff Jerome John Boudreau as a Class Representative
Service Award, which shall be in addition to any amount to which he may be entitled under the terms of
the settlement. This amount will be paid from the Gross Settlement amount under the first payment.
(Settl. Agr. Section D.1.)
- Administrative costs shall be paid from the settlement proceeds in an amount no greater than
$8,700.00. This amount will be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount. An amount of up to $5,400.00
shall be paid in the first payment installment, and an amount up to $3,300.00 shall be paid in the second
payment installment. Any difference remaining between the actual administrative costs and the
authorized maximum shall be allocated pro rata to the class members. (Settl. Agr. Section C.3.)
- An amount of $100,000.00 allocated to PAGA claims; the settlement class to receive 25 percent
Event ID: 2568674 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.:
Page: 2
CASE TITLE: BOUDREAU VS. PRIMERITUS CASE NUMBER: 34-2018-00247272-CU-OE-GDS
FINANCIAL SERVICES INC
thereof, which will be included in the Net Settlement Amount. The remaining 75 percent shall be paid to
the LWDA. (Settl. Agr. Sec. D.3.)
- Up to 35 percent of the Gross Settlement Amount ($1.365 million) to be allocated to Plaintiff's
attorney fees, and an additional amount up to $25,000.00 to compensate class counsel for costs. Notice
of the payment of these fees and costs would be included in the proposed class notice of settlement.
These amounts shall also be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount. Any difference remaining between
this amount and the authorized maximum shall be allocated pro rata to the class members. (Settl. Agr.
Sec. D.2.)
- Claim forms are not required for Class Members to participate in the settlement. (Settl. Agr. Secs.
C.4, C.5.) Class members who did not or do not timely opt-out of the settlement shall waive all claims
alleged in this action, as well as any that could have been alleged. (Settl. Agr. Sec. E.2.)
- For settlement checks distributed to class members that are not cashed by the designated
check-cashing deadline, the funds will be remitted to the State of California Unclaimed Property Fund in
the name of each Class Member. (Settl. Agr. Sec. D.5.)
The trial court has broad authority to determine whether a proposed settlement of a class action is fair.
(Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank (1990) 200 Cal.App.3d 1117, 1138.) To prevent fraud, collusion or
unfairness to the class, the settlement or dismissal of a class action requires court approval. (Malibu
Outrigger Bd. of Governors v. Superior Court (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 573, 578-579.)
In reviewing a request for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, the Court's task is to
determine whether the proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness that would warrant
sending out a notice of the settlement and giving the class members the opportunity to object. (Newberg
on Class Actions, 3d Ed. (1992) § 11.25.) In making its fairness determination, the Court must consider
the relevant factors, such as the strength of the Plaintiffs' case, the risk, expenses and complexity and
likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount
offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, and the
experience and view of counsel. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 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." (Id. at 1802.)
The Court tentatively finds, subject to arguments to be made at the hearing, that the settlement is
entitled to a presumption of fairness and that all relevant factors presently support preliminary approval.
The moving papers reflect that the settlement was the product of arms-length bargaining between the
parties and was reached after sufficient investigation, which allowed the parties, and therefore this
Court, to act intelligently with respect to the settlement. Specifically, the parties conducted formal and
informal discovery, including the production of documents, written discovery requests, and meet and
confer discussions. The settlement provides significant benefits to the class members in the form of
timely monetary compensation. There is nothing before the Court that would overcome the presumption
of fairness to the Class. (Dunk, supra, at 1802.)
The Court notes, however, that it has concerns regarding the proportionality of the claimed attorneys'
fees to the costs in the amounts currently recited in the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the Court
reserves its right to adjudicate the claimed fees and costs until the final approval hearing. (See Laffite v.
Robert Half International, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503-504 ["[W]hen class action litigation establishes a
monetary fund for the benefit of the class members, and the trial court in its equitable powers awards
class counsel a fee out of that fund, the court may determine the amount of a reasonable fee by
choosing an appropriate percentage of the fund created."].) Further, trial courts "retain the discretion to
forego a lodestar cross-check and use other means to evaluate the reasonableness of a requested
percentage fee." (Id. at 504.)
Event ID: 2568674 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.:
Page: 3
CASE TITLE: BOUDREAU VS. PRIMERITUS CASE NUMBER: 34-2018-00247272-CU-OE-GDS
FINANCIAL SERVICES INC
The Court concludes that the settlement class satisfies the requirements of numerosity, commonality
and typicality. Plaintiffs are adequately represented by Plaintiff John Boudreau, and class counsel. It
appears to the Court that common questions of fact and law predominate over individual questions in
this action for purposes of settlement. The superiority requirement for class certification also has been
satisfied. The putative class at the time of settlement comprises approximately 165 class members.
(See Gutierrez Decl., ¶ 13.)
Class Notice & Claim Form
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.) The parties anticipate providing information to the
Settlement Administrator as outlined in the proposed schedule contained in the Settlement Agreement
and Proposed Order.
The Court notes, however, that Section V of the Proposed Notice to Class Members contains blank
areas regarding specific dates and requires specification and correction. Subject to these corrections,
the Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement and Notice provisions, including the proposed
deadlines for the notice process. Class counsel shall calculate the specific dates prior to issuance of the
Notice.
LWDA Notice
Before commencing a PAGA action, an aggrieved employee must provide notice to the employer and
the LWDA in accordance with Labor Code § 2699.3. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the
LWDA was given proper notice before the FAC was filed. (FAC ¶¶ 132-134.)
Conclusion
The Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement subject to the conditions set forth
above, including specification of dates contained in the class notice.
Alejandro Gutierrez, Daniel Palay, and Brian Hefelfinger, are appointed as class counsel for purposes of
settlement.
Plaintiff John Boudreau is appointed as the class representative for purposes of settlement.
Simpluris is appointed as Claims Administrator.
Plaintiff is directed to contact the clerk in department 41 at (916) 874-5661 to schedule a final settlement
approval date in December 2021; or as is necessary for the administrator and counsel.
Event ID: 2568674 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.:
Page: 4
Preview
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CIVIL TENTATIVE RULINGS - July 28, 2021 EVENT DATE: 07/29/2021 EVENT TIME: 01:30:00 PM DEPT.: 41 JUDICIAL OFFICER: CASE NO.: 34-2018-00247272-CU-OE-GDS CASE TITLE: BOUDREAU VS. PRIMERITUS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Other employment EVENT TYPE: Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement - Complex CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: The Court issues the following tentative ruling for the hearing on July 29, 2021, regarding the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement filed by Plaintiff John Boudreau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. No oppositions have been filed. While the Court's ruling tentatively indicates that it will grant preliminary approval of the class action settlement, subject to certain conditions, the Court must still hold a hearing on the motion as it may involve the receipt of evidence. Although the Court anticipates that no party will request oral argument, and while no class member indicated any intent to appear at the hearing, this does not relieve the parties from appearing at the hearing or otherwise render the instant ruling final in the event oral argument is not requested. The Court will not render a final ruling until it holds the preliminary approval hearing. Any and all appearances for the hearing must be made via Zoom. To request oral argument on this matter, you must call the Court at (916) 874-5661 (Department 41) by 4:00 p.m., the Court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. (Local Rule 1.06.) Parties requesting services of a court reporter shall advise the Court at (916) 874-6353 no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. Please be advised there is a $30.00 fee for court reporting services, which must be paid at the time of the hearing, for each civil proceeding lasting less than one hour. (Govt. Code § 68086(a)(1)(A).) The Court Reporter will not report any proceeding unless a request is made and the requisite fees are paid in advance of the hearing. Notice: Given the circumstances presented by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, this hearing will be conducted remotely via Zoom [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. The Department 41 Zoom link is: https://saccourt.zoom.us/my/dept41a. The Zoom ID is: 349 373 7884. The Zoom number is (888) 475-4499. Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is unopposed and is GRANTED, as set forth below. By this motion, Plaintiff class counsel requests that the Court (1) provisionally and conditionally certify Event ID: 2568674 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: Page: 1 CASE TITLE: BOUDREAU VS. PRIMERITUS CASE NUMBER: 34-2018-00247272-CU-OE-GDS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC the proposed settlement class; (2) preliminarily appoint named plaintiff John Boudreau as class representative for purposes of settlement; (3) preliminarily appoint Alejandro Gutierrez, Daniel Palay, and Brian Hefelfinger as class counsel for purposes of settlement; (4) preliminarily approve the proposed class action settlement amount of $3.9 million; (5) preliminarily approve application for payment to class counsel of attorney fees in the amount of $1.365 million (35% of the Gross Settlement Amount); (6) preliminarily approve application for payment to class counsel of reasonable costs not to exceed $25,000.00; (7) preliminarily and conditionally approve payment of class representative enhancement to John Boudreau in the amount of $25,000.00; (8) appoint Simpluris as the Claims Administrator, at a cost of up to $5,400.00, to perform all necessary administrative claim and payment tasks; (9) preliminarily approve settlement of claims under the Private Attorney General Act to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency in the amount of $100,000.00, with a remainder payment of $25,000.00 included in the Net Settlement Amount for distribution to the proposed settlement class; (10) approve as to form and content the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement, and Hearing Date for Final Court Approval of Settlement ("Class Notice") and Disbursement Form; (11) approve proposed procedures to notify the class and determine that the proposed procedures comply with due process and direct the Class Notice and Disbursement Form to be mailed by first class mail to the class members; and, (12) preliminarily and conditionally approve and adopt the Proposed Order and the schedule stated therein. The Court is requested to preliminary certify this matter as a class action, on behalf of "[A]ll non-exempt current and former employees of Primeritus who were employed by Primeritus in California during the Class Period December 27, 2014 to August 12, 2019, and who held the position of Investigator/skip tracer" and participated in the Incentive Pay Plan that was the subject of the Action. (See Gutierrez Decl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff John Boudreau, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, filed his complaint in this action on December 27, 2018; the First amended Complaint was filed on April 12, 2019. The operative FAC alleges seven causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage (Labor Code §§ 1194, 226.2); (2) Failure to Timely Pay Wages (Labor Code §§ 201-203); (3) Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods (Labor Code § 226.7); (4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Pay Meal Premiums (Labor Code § 226.7); (5) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements (Labor Code §§ 226, 226.2; (6) Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.); and (7) Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Labor Code § 2699 et seq.) As generally noted above, the essential settlement terms are as follows: - Defendant shall pay a maximum Gross Settlement Amount (GSA) of $3.9 million; the payments shall be split into two payments of $2.5 million on or before February 1, 2022, and $1.4 million paid on or before July 1, 2022. The PAGA payment, Service Payment and administrative fees incurred as of the time of the first payment shall be paid in full from the first payment; the remainder shall be distributed to pro rata to Class Members and then to Class Counsel. The remaining payments shall be paid from the second payment. Defendant shall be responsible for the employer's share of payroll taxes. None of the GSA shall revert to Defendants. (Settl. Agr. at Section D.) - An amount up to $25,000 shall be paid to Plaintiff Jerome John Boudreau as a Class Representative Service Award, which shall be in addition to any amount to which he may be entitled under the terms of the settlement. This amount will be paid from the Gross Settlement amount under the first payment. (Settl. Agr. Section D.1.) - Administrative costs shall be paid from the settlement proceeds in an amount no greater than $8,700.00. This amount will be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount. An amount of up to $5,400.00 shall be paid in the first payment installment, and an amount up to $3,300.00 shall be paid in the second payment installment. Any difference remaining between the actual administrative costs and the authorized maximum shall be allocated pro rata to the class members. (Settl. Agr. Section C.3.) - An amount of $100,000.00 allocated to PAGA claims; the settlement class to receive 25 percent Event ID: 2568674 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: Page: 2 CASE TITLE: BOUDREAU VS. PRIMERITUS CASE NUMBER: 34-2018-00247272-CU-OE-GDS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC thereof, which will be included in the Net Settlement Amount. The remaining 75 percent shall be paid to the LWDA. (Settl. Agr. Sec. D.3.) - Up to 35 percent of the Gross Settlement Amount ($1.365 million) to be allocated to Plaintiff's attorney fees, and an additional amount up to $25,000.00 to compensate class counsel for costs. Notice of the payment of these fees and costs would be included in the proposed class notice of settlement. These amounts shall also be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount. Any difference remaining between this amount and the authorized maximum shall be allocated pro rata to the class members. (Settl. Agr. Sec. D.2.) - Claim forms are not required for Class Members to participate in the settlement. (Settl. Agr. Secs. C.4, C.5.) Class members who did not or do not timely opt-out of the settlement shall waive all claims alleged in this action, as well as any that could have been alleged. (Settl. Agr. Sec. E.2.) - For settlement checks distributed to class members that are not cashed by the designated check-cashing deadline, the funds will be remitted to the State of California Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of each Class Member. (Settl. Agr. Sec. D.5.) The trial court has broad authority to determine whether a proposed settlement of a class action is fair. (Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank (1990) 200 Cal.App.3d 1117, 1138.) To prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class, the settlement or dismissal of a class action requires court approval. (Malibu Outrigger Bd. of Governors v. Superior Court (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 573, 578-579.) In reviewing a request for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, the Court's task is to determine whether the proposed settlement is within the range of reasonableness that would warrant sending out a notice of the settlement and giving the class members the opportunity to object. (Newberg on Class Actions, 3d Ed. (1992) § 11.25.) In making its fairness determination, the Court must consider the relevant factors, such as the strength of the Plaintiffs' case, the risk, expenses and complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, and the experience and view of counsel. (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 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." (Id. at 1802.) The Court tentatively finds, subject to arguments to be made at the hearing, that the settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness and that all relevant factors presently support preliminary approval. The moving papers reflect that the settlement was the product of arms-length bargaining between the parties and was reached after sufficient investigation, which allowed the parties, and therefore this Court, to act intelligently with respect to the settlement. Specifically, the parties conducted formal and informal discovery, including the production of documents, written discovery requests, and meet and confer discussions. The settlement provides significant benefits to the class members in the form of timely monetary compensation. There is nothing before the Court that would overcome the presumption of fairness to the Class. (Dunk, supra, at 1802.) The Court notes, however, that it has concerns regarding the proportionality of the claimed attorneys' fees to the costs in the amounts currently recited in the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the Court reserves its right to adjudicate the claimed fees and costs until the final approval hearing. (See Laffite v. Robert Half International, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503-504 ["[W]hen class action litigation establishes a monetary fund for the benefit of the class members, and the trial court in its equitable powers awards class counsel a fee out of that fund, the court may determine the amount of a reasonable fee by choosing an appropriate percentage of the fund created."].) Further, trial courts "retain the discretion to forego a lodestar cross-check and use other means to evaluate the reasonableness of a requested percentage fee." (Id. at 504.) Event ID: 2568674 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: Page: 3 CASE TITLE: BOUDREAU VS. PRIMERITUS CASE NUMBER: 34-2018-00247272-CU-OE-GDS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC The Court concludes that the settlement class satisfies the requirements of numerosity, commonality and typicality. Plaintiffs are adequately represented by Plaintiff John Boudreau, and class counsel. It appears to the Court that common questions of fact and law predominate over individual questions in this action for purposes of settlement. The superiority requirement for class certification also has been satisfied. The putative class at the time of settlement comprises approximately 165 class members. (See Gutierrez Decl., ¶ 13.) Class Notice & Claim Form 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.) The parties anticipate providing information to the Settlement Administrator as outlined in the proposed schedule contained in the Settlement Agreement and Proposed Order. The Court notes, however, that Section V of the Proposed Notice to Class Members contains blank areas regarding specific dates and requires specification and correction. Subject to these corrections, the Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement and Notice provisions, including the proposed deadlines for the notice process. Class counsel shall calculate the specific dates prior to issuance of the Notice. LWDA Notice Before commencing a PAGA action, an aggrieved employee must provide notice to the employer and the LWDA in accordance with Labor Code § 2699.3. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the LWDA was given proper notice before the FAC was filed. (FAC ¶¶ 132-134.) Conclusion The Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement subject to the conditions set forth above, including specification of dates contained in the class notice. Alejandro Gutierrez, Daniel Palay, and Brian Hefelfinger, are appointed as class counsel for purposes of settlement. Plaintiff John Boudreau is appointed as the class representative for purposes of settlement. Simpluris is appointed as Claims Administrator. Plaintiff is directed to contact the clerk in department 41 at (916) 874-5661 to schedule a final settlement approval date in December 2021; or as is necessary for the administrator and counsel. Event ID: 2568674 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: Page: 4