OrderCal. Super. - 3rd Dist.November 25, 2019El ec tr on ic al ly R e c e i v e d 12 /2 9/ 20 20 03 :4 0 \o 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 a 26 27 28 ERIC B. KINGSLEY, Esq., (SBN 185123) eric@kingsleykingsley.com KELSEY M. SZAMET, Esq. (SBN 260264) kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300// Fax: (818) 990-2903 Attorneys for Plaintiff Giles and the Proposed Class Leonard H. Sansanowicz (SBN 255729) leonard@law-slg.com SANSANOWICZ LAW GROUP, P.C. 1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (323) 677-0200// Fax: (323) 549-0101 FILED Superior Court of California County of Placer JAN 19 2021 IQ vane Chatters utive Officer & Clerk By: O. Lucatuorto, Deputy Attorneys for Plaintiff Patrick McClanahan and the Proposed Class SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER JERAMIE GILES, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated Plaintiff, vs. CIK POWER DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants. Placer County Superior Court Case No. S-CV-0044085 PATRICK MCCLANAHAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, VS. CIK POWER DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, a California limited liability company, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No 20STCV00307 1 CASE NO. S-CV-0044085 {PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT [Filed concurrently with Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval; Declarations of Kelsey M. Szamet and Leonard Sansanowicz] Date: January 15, 2021 Time: 8:30 am Dept.: 40 Action Filed: November 25, 2019 Trial Date: July 6, 2021 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAT. OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT O n & WW bv 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Settlement came before this Court on January 15, 2020. The Court, having considered the papers submitted in support of the motion of the parties, HEREBY ORDERS THE FOLLOWING: L. The Court grants preliminary approval of the proposed settlement based upon the terms set forth in the Stipulation and Settlement of Class and Representative Action (“Settlement Agreement” or “Settlement”) attached to the Declaration of Kelsey M. Szamet in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Approval as Exhibit “A”. The Settlement Agreement appears to be fair, adequate, and reasonable to the Settlement Class. The Court finds that: (a) the Settlement Agreement resulted from extensive arm’s length negotiations; and (b) the Settlement Agreement is sufficient to warrant notice of the Settlement Agreement to persons in the Settlement Class and a full hearing regarding final approval of the Settlement Agreement. 2. For purposes of this Order, the proposed Settlement Class is defined as: “All nonexempt hourly paid persons employed by Defendant in California during the Class Period. (“Class Members” or “Settlement Class’’) 3. There are 264 putative Class Members. 4. The Class Period is from November 25, 2015 through the grant of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement. 5. The Settlement Agreement falls within the range of reasonableness and appears to be presumptively valid, subject only to any objections that may be raised at the final fairness hearing and final approval by this Court. 6. The Court makes the following preliminary findings for settlement purposes only: A. The Settlement Class, which consists of 264 persons, is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; B. There appear to be questions of law or fact common to the Settlement Class for purposes of determining whether this Settlement should be approved; C. Plaintiffs’ claims appear to be typical of the claims being resolved through the proposed settlement; D. Plaintiffs appear to be capable of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the Class Members in connection with the proposed settlement; 2 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAT. OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E. Common questions of law and fact appear to predominate over questions affecting only individual persons in the Settlement Class. Accordingly, the Settlement Class appears to be sufficiently cohesive to warrant settlement by representation; and F. Certification of the Settlement Class appears to be superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient resolution of the claims of the Settlement Class. 7. The Court approves, as to form and content, the Notice Packet to Class Members in substantially the form attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit “1”. 8. The Court approves the procedure for Class Members to opt out to the Settlement Agreement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the Notice Packet. 9. The Court approves the procedure for Class Members to object to the Settlement Agreement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the Notice Packet. 10. The Court directs the mailing of the Notice Packet and related documents to members of the Settlement Class by first class mail in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and the implementation schedule set forth below. The Court finds that the dates selected for the mailing and distribution of the notice, as set forth in the following implementation schedule, meet the requirements of due process and provide the best notice practicable under the circumstances and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto. 11. ‘It is ordered that the Settlement Class is preliminarily certified for settlement purposes only. 12. The Court confirms Kingsley & Kingsley, APC and Sansanowicz Law Group, P.C. as Class Counsel. 13. The Court confirms JERAMIE GILES and PATRICK MCCLANAHAN as Plaintiffs. 14. The Court approves ILYM Group, Inc. as the Claims Administrator. 15. The Court orders that pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”), statutory notice of the Settlement Agreement has been given to the Labor & Workforce Development Agency. 16. A final fairness hearing on the question of whether the proposed Settlement 3 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAT. OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Agreement, attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel, the PAGA payment, and the Claims Administration Costs should be finally approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable as to the members of the Settlement Class is scheduled for Ag . 3 ZZ at C 492 ae aa 4 ; (Pacific Time), in Department 4 17. The Court orders the following Implementation Schedule for further proceedings: a. Preliminary Approval Granted Deadline for Defendant to Provide Class List to Claims al calenday cays ftom b. - Entry of Preliminary Administrator Approval Claims Administrator Shall Mail Notice Packet to Class a colon days from c, receipt of the Class List Members from Defendant d. Deadline for Postmark of Any Request for Exclusion 45 Days from qeiing ot Notice Packet . ss 45 Days from Mailing of e. Deadline for Postmark of Any Objection Notice Packet . To be determined by the £ Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final Court ‘ Approval of Class Settlement ; To be determined by the Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Attorneys' Cont &: Fees h. Final Approval Hearin A. 1 g COE Z Lo 24 7 18. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that if the Court does not execute and file an Order of Final Approval and Judgment, or if the Effective Date of Settlement, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, does not occur for any reason, the Settlement Agreement and the proposed Settlement that is the subject of this Order shall become null, void, unenforceable and inadmissible in any judicial, administrative or arbitral proceeding for any purpose, and all evidence, court orders and proceedings had in connection therewith, shall be without prejudice to the status quo ante rights of the Parties to the litigation, as more specifically set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 4 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAT. OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT W Y W N 10 11 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pending further Order of this Court, all proceedings in this matter except those contemplated herein and in the Settlement Agreement are hereby stayed. 20. The Court expressly reserves the right to adjourn or continue the Final Fairness Hearing from time to time without further notice to members of the Seftlement Class. Ly /, /] if ae DATED: PAM. (4, 222 Lo | JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Michael W. Jones 5 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAT. OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 (PROOF OF SERVICE) [CCP 1013(a)(3)] STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200, Encino, California 91436. On December 21, 2020, I served all interested parties in this action the following documents described as: [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Brian P. Maschler, Esq. Mark S. Posard, Esq. Judith A. Cregan, Esq. Leonard H. Sansanowicz bmaschler@grsm.com leonard@law-slg.com mposard@grsm.com SANSANOWICZ LAW GROUP, P.C. jeregan@grsm.com 8549 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANT, LLP Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3104 3 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Patrick McClanahan Attorneys for Defendant [ ] (BY MAIL) I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage fully prepaid at Encino, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [XX] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I caused a true and correct copy thereof to be electronically filed using the Labor and Workforce Development Agency Electronic Filing (“EF”) System (https://dir.tfaforms.net/271) and service was completed by electronic means by transmittal of the documents referenced herein on the EF System. [XX] BY ELECTRONIC MAIL TRANSMISSION: I caused the document to be send to the persons at the e-mail address(es) listed on the attached service list. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. A pdf copy of which was sent via email to the below email address(es). [XX] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on December 21, 2020 at Woodland Hills, California, Z rs a“ JP Michelle A. Zanzer 1 PROOF OF SERVICE,
