1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ERIC ALLEN PHILLIPS, Case No. 25-cv-01868-EMC (EMC)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY 9 v. CLASS SETTLEMENT APPROVAL

10 C&K MARKET, INC., Docket No. 21 11 Defendants.

12 13 On October 30, 2025, the Court heard Plaintiff Eric Allen Phillips’s (“Class 14 Representative” or “Plaintiff”) unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action 15 Settlement. The Court, having fully received and considered the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion, 16 supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Kevin Lipeles, the Declaration of Eric Allen Phillips, the Settlement Agreement, the Notice, the objection and opt-out 17 procedure, the supplemental briefing, and the oral argument presented to the Court, and in 18 recognition of the Court’s duty to make a preliminary determination as to the reasonableness of 19 any proposed class action settlement, and to conduct a fairness hearing as to the good faith, 20 fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of any proposed settlement, HEREBY FINDS: 21 Plaintiff and his counsel filed this class action lawsuit alleging that Defendants C & K 22 Market, Inc. dba Smart Shop and Ray’s Food Place (“Defendants”) failed to pay overtime wages 23 due to off the clock work, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal and rest breaks (or 24 pay the statutory compensation due), failed to issue accurate wage statements, failed to pay all 25 wages on termination, failed to reimburse business expenses, failed to pay reporting time pay, 26 unlawfully deducted wages and failed to pay sick pay. Plaintiff also alleged on a class basis that 27 the foregoing violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code 1 §17200, et seq. and triggered penalties under California’s Private Attorney Generals Act, Labor 2 Code §§ 2699 et seq. On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Original Class Action Complaint 3 in the Alameda County Superior Court on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. On 4 February 21, 2025, Defendants removed the Action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 20, 2025 Plaintiff filed the First Amended Class Action 5 Complaint (“FAC”), adding a claim for violations of the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), 6

, et seq. 7 After conducting informal discovery and negotiating at arm’s-length, Plaintiff and 8 Defendants have arrived at what the Court finds to be a fair and equitable settlement of all claims 9 encompassed by Plaintiff’s FAC. For the reasons stated on the record, the proposed settlement 10 fairly reflects the potential value of the claims settled, the litigation risks faced by the plaintiffs, 11 and the results obtained by the settlement. Dkt. No. 32. Plaintiff and Defendants have agreed to 12 the entry of a Class Representative Action Settlement Agreement and Release (“Agreement”), 13 attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Kevin Lipeles, filed in support of the Motion for 14 Preliminary Approval. Dkt. No. 21-1. 15 Defendants continue to deny all allegations contained in Plaintiff’s FAC. Defendants have 16 contended that they at all times had in place lawful wage and hour policies and procedures. 17 Plaintiff has moved this Court to (1) provisionally certify a settlement class; 2) preliminarily 18 approve the Agreement; (3) direct distribution to the class of a proposed Notice; and (4) set a 19 hearing date for final approval of the settlement. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion for 20 purposes of settlement but reserve all rights and defenses with respect to the litigation. 21 22 ORDER CONDITIONALLY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS AND 23 APPOINTING CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND CLASS COUNSEL 24 The Court finds that under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(3), and related 25 case law, provisional certification of the following class is appropriate for settlement purposes: 26 “All current and former employees who were hourly paid employees of Defendants and worked 27 for Defendants in California at any time during the period from September 30, 2020 to August 10, 1 23(a)(1) because it consists of approximately 1,094 Class Members who have been identified 2 through Defendants’ records. 3 The Court finds that the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) is also met because 4 there are issues of law and fact common to the Class, such as whether Defendants’ paid overtime, minimum wages, afforded complainant meal/rest breaks, issued accurate wage statements, paid all 5 wages owed on termination of employment, reimbursed business expenses, paid reporting time 6 pay, paid sick pay and unlawfully deducted wages. The representations and evidence provided by 7 the parties in supplemental briefing and at the Preliminary Approval Hearing is sufficient to show 8 a common practice at this stage. Dkt. No. 25, 29, 32. In the absence of class certification and 9 settlement, each individual Class Member would be forced to litigate the same core common 10 issues of law and fact. Because Plaintiff’s and the Participating Class Members’ claims all arise 11 from the same events and course of conduct, and are based on the same legal theories, the 12 typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is also satisfied. The adequacy of representation 13 requirement set forth in Rule 23(a)(4) is also met here because the Class Representative has the 14 same interests as all members of the Settlement Class, and they are represented by experienced 15 and competent counsel. 16 Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), and based on the supplemental briefing and information 17 provided at the Preliminary Approval Hearing, the Court further finds that common issues 18 predominate over individual issues in the litigation. Dkt. No. 25, 29, 32. The Court also finds that 19 class treatment is superior to other means of resolving the instant dispute. Employing the class 20 device here will not only achieve economies of scale for Class Members with relatively small 21 individual claims, but will also conserve the resources of the judicial system by avoiding the waste 22 and delay of repetitive proceedings, and prevent the inconsistent adjudications of similar issues 23 and claims. 24 The Court finds that the Class Representative Eric Allen Phillips is an adequate class 25 representative and appoints him as such. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(g), 26 the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Counsel, Kevin Lipeles (Lipeles Law Group, APC), has adequately 27 represented the Settlement Class and is adequate Class Counsel. Specifically, he has sufficiently 1 of his experience in handling other wage and hour class actions; has demonstrated knowledge of 2 the applicable law; and has allocated sufficient resources to represent the class. Accordingly, 3 pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1), Kevin Lipeles, Esq. of Lipeles Law Group, APC, is hereby appointed as 4 Class Counsel.

5 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 6 The Court has reviewed the Agreement and the proposed Notice of Settlement (long form), 7 which is attached as exhibit A to the Agreement (the Agreement is attached as Exhibit 1 to the 8 Declaration of Kevin Lipeles). The Court has also reviewed the short form class notice at Dkt. No. 9 35. 10 The Court finds, on a preliminary basis, that the Agreement falls within the range of 11 reasonableness of a settlement that could ultimately be given final approval by this Court. The 12 Court also finds, on a preliminary basis, that the Agreement appears to be the product of non- 13 collusive, arm’s-length negotiations between counsel, and is thus presumptively valid. It appears 14 to the Court on a preliminary basis that the total settlement amount of $750,000 (“Total Settlement 15 Amount” or “TSA”) is fair and reasonable to all Class Members when balanced against the 16 probable outcome of further litigation relating to liability and damages issues. It further appears 17 that investigation and research have been conducted such that the Parties’ counsel are able to 18 reasonably evaluate their respective positions at this time. Specifically, the Parties exchanged 19 informal discovery that included hard data showing that Defendants had a more than 90% meal 20 break compliance rate, as well as ten sworn declarations from a cross-section of employees 21 regarding the meal break, rest break, off-the-clock, and reimbursement claims. Dkt. No. 32. This 22 discovery, which supports Defendants’ claims of high compliance, justifies the proportionately 23 low settlement amount relative to the total value of the claims initially asserted. The Court also 24 recognizes settlement will avoid additional substantial costs beyond those which have already 25 been incurred by both Parties, as well the delay and risks that would be presented by further 26 litigation. 27 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court therefore preliminarily and conditionally 1 the TSA. The Court does not at this time approve the proposed Class Representative Enhancement 2 Award for Plaintiff Eric Allen Phillips in the amount of $20,000 or the proposed attorneys’ fees of 3 35% ($262,500) of the TSA, and $13,500 in costs. Those matters will be determined at the time 4 of the hearing on final approval. The Court observes for now that the requested fees as a percentage of the settlement fund exceed the typical benchmark of 25% established as reasonable 5 in this Circuit. See e.g. In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 6 2011). Pursuant to Rule 23(g)(4) and Rule 54(d)(2), Plaintiff’s counsel may file a Motion for 7 Approval of their attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with and to be heard at the same time as 8 the Final Fairness Hearing regarding the settlement. 9

10 APPROVAL OF DISTRIBUTION OF THE CLASS NOTICE 11 This Court finds that the Notice (long form) (attached as Exhibit A to the Agreement) and 12 the short form Class Notice (Dkt. No. 35) fairly and adequately advise Class Members of the 13 terms of the proposed settlement, the formula that will be used to compute their pro rata allocation 14 of the settlement, and their opportunity to appear at the Fairness Hearing to be conducted on the 15 date set forth below, subject to one revision. Plaintiff shall bold the $750,000 figure that appears 16 on the front of the short form notice and bold the sentence “The average estimated amount per 17 class member is $372.00” that appears on the back. The Court further finds that the Notices and 18 proposed distribution of such notices by first class mail to each identified Class Member at his or 19 her last known address and by email (which provides for electronic opt-out) comports with all 20 constitutional requirements, including those of due process and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B), and is 21 the best notice practicable under the circumstances. The Court confirms the selection of Phoenix 22 Class Action Administration Solutions as the Settlement Administrator and the reasonable 23 administration costs of no more than $14,500 which will be paid from the TSA. Accordingly, 24 good cause appearing, the Court hereby approves the proposed Notice. Furthermore, the Court 25 hereby approves and adopts the following settlement approval schedule: 26 Within 7 calendar days of the Effective Date Deadline for Defendants to forward the Total 27 of the Settlement Settlement Amount to the Settlement Administrator. Stip. at ¶56. of the Preliminary Approval Order Class Members’ Class Information containing 1 the last-known addresses, etc. of Class members to the Settlement Administrator. 2 Stip. at 53. Within 10 calendar days after the Settlement Settlement Administrator shall mail (and 3 Administrator receives the Class Information email) Class Members’ Notice. Stip. at ¶53(a). 4 3 business days after receipt of notice that the Settlement Administrator to re-mail (and Notice of Class Action Settlement was email) Notice of Class Action Settlement. Stip. 5 undeliverable ¶53(b). 20 calendar days from the date of remailing or New Response Deadline to the Notice of Class 6 original Response Deadline Action Settlement for those receiving re- mailed Notices of the Class Action Settlement. 7 Stip. ¶53(b). No later than 45 calendar days from Deadline for Settlement Class Members to 8 date on which the Notice is mailed by the Request for Exclusion. Stip. at ¶ 38. Settlement Administrator 9 No later than 45 calendar days after mailing of Deadline for Settlement Class Members’ Notice by the Settlement Administrator objections to the Settlement to be sent to the 10 Settlement Administrator. Stip. at ¶ 38. No later than 7 calendar days after the Settlement Administrator shall provide 11 Response Deadline Counsel for the Parties with a list of the names of members of the Class who submitted timely 12 and valid Requests for Exclusion. Stip. at ¶53(e)(5). 13 Response Deadline The date forty-five (45) calendar days after the Settlement Administrator mails the Notice of 14 Class Action Settlement to Class Members, which is the last date on which Class Members 15 may: (a) submit a Request for Exclusion; (b) submit objections to the Class Settlement; or 16 (c) dispute the information contained in the Notice of Class Action Settlement regarding 17 the number of Eligible Workweeks to be credited to the Class Members. Stip. at 18 ¶38. 7 calendar days after the Effective Date Settlement Administrator shall send to 19 Defendants’ Counsel the electronic wiring instructions for the Settlement 20 Amount. Stip. at ¶56. 21 20 calendar days after the Effective Date Defendants shall fund the QSF. Stip. at ¶56. 22 Within 15 calendar days after Defendants fully Settlement Administrator shall make fund the Settlement payment of the Individual PAGA 23 Payments. Stip. at ¶59(b). 15 calendar days after Defendants fund the Settlement Administrator shall mail 24 QSF the LWDA PAGA Payment to the LWDA. Stip. at ¶59(b). 25 Within 15 calendar days after Defendants fully Settlement Administrator shall distribute Class fund the Settlement Counsel’s fees and costs. Stip. at ¶61(a). 26 Within 15 calendar days after Defendants fully Settlement Administrator shall be paid its fund the Settlement Settlement Administration Costs. ¶65. 27 1 FINAL APPROVAL AND FAIRNESS HEARING 2 The Court hereby grants the Plaintiff's motion to set a fairness hearing for final approval of 3 the Settlement Agreement on March 19, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5 of this Court. Pursuant 4 || to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(5), members of the Settlement Class may object to the 5 terms of the settlement. Members of the Settlement Class who object to the proposed settlement 6 || may appear and present such objections at the Fairness Hearing in person or by counsel, 4 provided that any objecting Settlement Class Members submit a written statement containing the g name and address of the objecting Settlement Class Member and the basis of that person’s 9 objections, together with a notice of the intention to appear, if appropriate, which must be

10 postmarked no later than 45 days from the date on which the Notices are sent out by the Settlement Administrator. No person shall be heard, and no briefs or papers shall be received or 11 considered, unless the foregoing documents have been filed and served as provided in this Order, 12 except as this Court may permit for good cause shown. Class Counsel shall file a memorandum of 13 = points and authorities in support of the final approval of the Settlement Agreement no later than 14 21days before the Final Approval Hearing 15 16

17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Z 18 19 Dated: 12/2/2025 20 21 22 EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28