Please Take Notice That

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Sterlachini brought the Lawsuit as a representative of a putative class comprised of all persons to whom Defendant provided an electronically printed receipt at the point of sale or transaction between October 3, 2017 and July 2, 2019 which displays the expiration date of the consumer’s credit or debit card. Gaines Decl. at ¶ 12. The Parties and their respective counsel have participated in certain discovery and have now had the opportunity to comprehensively review and evaluate the case and consider their respective positions relative to the merits of the Lawsuit. Gaines Decl. at ¶ 13. The Parties and their respective counsel participated in a meaningful mediation on June 12, 2020 before class action mediator Steve Rottman, Esq. Gaines Decl. at ¶ 14. Following the mediation, the Parties continued to engage in settlement discussions and the Parties accepted a mediator’s proposal presented by Mr. Rottman in July, 2020. Gaines Decl. at ¶ 15. The issues in the Lawsuit would, if fully litigated, likely result in expensive and protracted litigation, appeals, and continued uncertainty as to the outcome. Gaines Decl. at ¶ 16. The Parties and their respective counsel have concluded that this Settlement Agreement provides an appropriate resolution of the Lawsuit and resolves the issues raised in the Lawsuit, without prolonged litigation or the expense, risk and uncertainty involved in such litigation. Gaines Decl. at ¶ 17. Plaintiff Sterlachini and Class Counsel have concluded that the proposed Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. Gaines Decl. at ¶ 18. Although Defendant denies any fault, wrongdoing, or liability of any kind, Defendant is entering into this Settlement Agreement to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and inherent risk of litigation and the concomitant disruption of its business operations. Gaines Decl. at ¶ 19. \\ \\ \\ -3NOTICE OF UNOPPOSED MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 III. SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS The significant terms of Stipulation for Settlement are set forth below. A. The Settlement Class The Settlement Class is defined as: Named Plaintiff and all individual consumers to whom Defendant [Riviera Golf & Tennis, Inc.] provided an electronically printed credit or debit card receipt between October 3, 2017 and July 2, 2019 at the point of sale or transaction on which Defendant printed the expiration date of the consumer’s American Express or Discover credit or debit card. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Stip. at ¶ 3.1. B. Settlement Fund The total amount of the settlement shall be 175,000 (the “Gross Settlement Amount”), without reversion or discount. Defendant shall deposit the Gross Settlement Amount with the Claims Administrator within 10 calendar days following the Effective Date. Stip. at ¶ 4.1. The projected allocation of funds from the Gross Settlement Amount is as follows: Class Counsel Fees (1/3): 58,333.33 Claims Administration Fees: 24,000.00 Class Counsel Costs: 12,500.00 Class Representative Enhancement: 4,000.00 Settlement Fund (net amount available for distribution to Settlement Class Members – Est.): 76,166.67. Id. 1. Consideration to the Settlement Class Each Settlement Class Member who does not opt out of the settlement shall be a “Qualified Claimant.” To determine the amount of each settlement payment, the Claims Administrator shall divide the Net Settlement Fund (approximately 76,166.67) by the total number of Qualified Claimants, which will be approximately 3,533 less any class members who choose to exclude themselves from the Settlement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, no Qualified Claimant may receive more than One Thousand Dollars ( 1,000.00) under the terms of the -4NOTICE OF UNOPPOSED MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Settlement Agreement. Although there are not projected to be any unclaimed funds, their value (together with the value of any checks remaining uncashed for 180 days after issuance) shall be paid to the Los Angeles County Bar Foundation as cy pres pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 384. Stip. at ¶¶ 4.1, 5.2 There are approximately 3,533 Settlement Class members. If each one participates in the settlement, each participating Class Member would receive approximately 21.55, net of attorney’s fees, costs, class representative enhancement, and settlement administration costs. 2. Cost of Settlement Administration The Settlement Administration Costs shall be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount, not to exceed 24,000. Stip. at ¶ 4.2. 3. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Class Counsel shall be entitled to request an award of attorneys’ fees not to exceed 58,333.33 and costs not to exceed 12,500 (“Fees and Costs Award”). The Fees and Costs Award will cover all work performed and all fees and costs incurred to date, and all work to be performed and all fees and costs to be incurred in connection with the approval by the Superior Court of this Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, and the administration of this Settlement Agreement through final disposition of the Lawsuit. Stip. at ¶ 4.3. 4. Class Representative Enhancement Payment Class Counsel shall also be entitled to apply for an Incentive Award to Plaintiff Sterlachini in an amount not to exceed Four Thousand Dollars ( 4,000.00) in consideration for his time and effort spent pursuing the Lawsuit. Stip. at ¶ 4.4. C. The Release by Plaintiff and Class Members The release, to which all Class Members (except for those who submit a valid and timely request for exclusion) will be bound, is as follows: Upon the Effective Date and subject to Defendant’s full payment of the Gross Settlement Amount, the Settlement Class Members (including Named Plaintiff) who have not properly excluded themselves from this Settlement Agreement, and their respective successors, assigns, and/or agents, hereby release and forever -5NOTICE OF UNOPPOSED MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 discharge Riviera Golf & Tennis, Inc. and its respective shareholders, officers, directors, members, managers, owners, agents, employees, clients, customers, business associates, attorneys, insurers, co-insurers, independent contractors, successors, predecessors, assigns, and any individual or entity that could be jointly liable with Defendant (collectively, the “Released Parties”) from the Released Claims. “Released Claims” means any and all debts, liabilities, costs, demands, obligations, known or unknown claims, causes of action, complaints, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, compensatory damages, special damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, and all claims for restitution and other equitable relief, injunctive relief, liquidated damages, and any other remedies owed or available under any federal, state or local law based on or arising out of the claims alleged in the Lawsuit, or which could have been alleged based on the facts pled in the Lawsuit, including without limitation federal and state statutory or regulatory violations (including but not limited to FACTA), negligence, contract, and/or common law claims caused thereby or attributable thereto, direct or indirect, whether or not currently known, which arose during the Class Period. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Stip. at ¶ 6.1. In addition to the class release, Plaintiff Sterlachini will enter into a full general release with 14 15 a Civil Code section 1542 waiver. Stip. at ¶ 6.2. 16 IV. PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL PROCESS 17 A. 18 Any settlement of class litigation must be reviewed and approved by the Court. Cal. R. Ct. 19 3.769; Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). 3 This is done in two steps: (1) an early (preliminary) review by the 20 trial court, and (2) a final review after notice has been distributed to the Class Members informing 21 them of the terms of the settlement and allowing them to exclude themselves from, participate in 22 and/or object to the settlement. The Manual for Complex Litigation (Third) § 30.41 states: Approval of class action settlements involves a two-step process. First, counsel submit the proposed terms of settlement and the court makes a preliminary fairness evaluation. If the preliminary evaluation of the proposed settlement does not disclose grounds to doubt its fairness or other obvious deficiencies, such as unduly preferential treatment of class representatives or of segments of the class, or excessive compensation for attorneys, and appears to fall 23 24 25 26 27 28 Two-Step Approval Process 3 The California Supreme Court has authorized California's trial courts to use Federal Rule 23 and cases applying it for guidance in considering class issues. See Vasquez v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 800, 821; Green v. Obledo (1981) 29 Cal.3d 126, 145-146. Where appropriate, therefore, Plaintiff cites Federal Rule 23 and federal case law in addition to California law. -6NOTICE OF UNOPPOSED MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 within the range of possible approval, the court should direct that notice be given to the class members of a formal fairness hearing, at which arguments and evidence may be presented in support of and in opposition to the settlement. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Thus, the preliminary approval by the trial court is simply a conditional finding that the settlement appears to be within the range of acceptable settlements. See Wershba v. Apple Computer (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234-35. “The strength of the findings made by a judge at a preliminary hearing or conference concerning a tentative settlement proposal may vary. The court may find that the settlement proposal contains some merit, is within the range of reasonableness required for a settlement offer, or is presumptively valid subject only to any objections that may be raised at a final hearing.” 4 Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions, § 11.26 (4th ed. 2002). The procedures for the Parties’ submission of a proposed settlement for preliminary approval by the Court also are discussed in 4 Newberg on Class Actions: When the parties to an action reach a monetary settlement, they will usually prepare and execute a joint stipulation of settlement, which is submitted to the court for preliminary approval. The stipulation should set forth the essential terms of the agreement, including but not limited to, the amount of settlement, form of payment, manner of determining the effective date of settlement and any recapture clause. 14 15 16 17 Id. at § 11.24. 18 Here, the Parties have reached such an agreement and have submitted the Stipulation and 19 Settlement Agreement herewith which fully sets forth all terms of the agreement reached among 20 the Parties. See Gaines Decl., Exhibit B; Gaines Decl. ¶ 20. 21 B. 22 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.769(d), parties also may, at the preliminary 23 approval stage, request that the court provisionally approve certification of the class – conditioned 24 upon final approval of the settlement. “[P]re-certification settlements are routinely approved if 25 found to be fair and reasonable.” Wershba, supra, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 240. Accord Dunk, supra, 26 48 Cal. App. 4th at 1803 (although the settlement was reached before any “adversary certification,” 27 the court was satisfied that it was “fair, adequate and reasonable.”). See also In re Baldwin-United 28 Procedures for Settlement Before Class Certification. -7NOTICE OF UNOPPOSED MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 2 3 Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 1984) 105 F.R.D. 475, 478 4 (“many courts have employed this practice in the name of judicial efficiency in order to facilitate apparently beneficial settlement proposals.”) The strength of the findings made by a judge at a preliminary hearing or conference concerning a tentative settlement proposal . . . may be set out in conditional orders granting tentative approval to the various items submitted to the court. Three basic rulings are often conditionally entered at this preliminary hearing. These conditional rulings may approve a temporary settlement class, the proposed settlement, and the class counsel’s application for fees and expenses. 4 5 6 7 8 4 Newberg on Class Actions, at §11.26. 1. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 It is well established that trial courts should use a lower standard for determining the propriety of certifying a settlement class, as opposed to a litigation class. Dunk, supra, 48 Cal. App. 4th at 1807, n. 19. The reason for this is that no trial is anticipated in a settlement class, so the case management issues inherent in determining if the class should be certified need not be confronted. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 a. The Settlement Class is Ascertainable of the class and the means for identifying the members of the class determine whether the class is ascertainable. Reyes v. Board of Supervisors (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 1263, 1274. In this case, Class Members have been identified via subpoena to American Express and Discover. The parties possess the names and mailing addresses and relevant credit and debit card transaction records for approximately 3,533 potential Class Members. Gaines Decl. ¶ 30. \\ \\ b. Questions of Law or Fact Common to Members of the Settlement Class Predominate 26 28 The proposed The proposed Settlement Class is ascertainable and numerous. The class definition, the size 25 27 Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor (1987) 521 U.S. 591, 620. Settlement Class meets all requirements for certification, as discussed below. 16 17 The Settlement Class Should Be Certified for Settlement Purposes The Class Members’ claims all stem from a common source. Here, the Settlement Class 4 In determining the fairness and reasonableness of a proposed settlement, California courts may look to federal cases for guidance. See Wershba, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 239-40. -8NOTICE OF UNOPPOSED MOTION AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Members all seek the same remedies under the identical federal law under the same theories of recovery, all relating to the Defendant’s alleged failure to truncate the expiration dates on credit and debit card receipts provided to customers in violation of the FACTA. The same factual predicates apply to each and every Class Member. The Settlement compensates Class Members for these identical claims. Under these circumstances, the commonality requirement is satisfied for settlement purposes. Gaines Decl. at ¶ 31. c. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Proposed Class Representative’s Claims are Typical of the Class Members’ Claims A class representative’s claims are typical when they arise from the same event or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of the class, and are based on the same legal theory. Classen v. Weller (1983) 145 Cal. App. 3d 27, 46-47. Here, Plaintiff’s claims are not only typical of those of all Class Members – they are substantially identical. Plaintiff alleges the Defendant failed to truncate the expiration dates of credit and debit cards from electronically printed receipts provided to customers in violation of the FACTA – Plaintiff alleges that this violates FACTA and subjects Defendant to statutory penalties. This same claim is alleged on behalf of Plaintiff and all Class Members. Plaintiff satisfies the typicality requirement for settlement purposes because his claims arise from the same factual basis and are based on the same legal theories as those applicable to all Settlement Class Members. Gaines Decl. a

Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012Plaintiff Nick Sterlachini , will and hereby domove es unopposed for an Order (1) preliminarily approving the proposed class action settlement in the . 2020 before class action mediator Steve Rottman, Esq. Gaines Decl. at ¶ 14.