Motion - Other For Approval of PAGA Settlement
23CV008911: ANTHONY MACIAS ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED vs BRIDGE LOCATIONS LLC, et al. 04/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other For Approval of PAGA Settlement in Department 8A
Tentative Ruling
On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion - Other For Approval of PAGA Settlement scheduled for 04/17/2026 is continued to 08/07/2026 at in Department 8A at Tani G. Cantil- Sakauye Courthouse.
***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MATTERS SET IN DEPARTMENT 23 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8A OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION.***
This motion is continued for the following reasons:
In this action, there are three active Defendants: Bridge Locations, LLC (Bridge), ISI HR, Inc. (ISI), and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (Comcast). (First Amended Complaint filed 11/27/23; Amendment to Complaint filed 2/9/24.) However, this motion and the settlement only involve Plaintiff, Bridge, and ISI. (Valenzuela Cabral Decl. Ex. 1 at Preamble and Signature Blocks.) There is no mention of Comcasts status as an active Defendant and how the settlement impacts Plaintiffs claims against Comcast. (See Id. at ¶ 1.27 [does not include Comcast as an expressly released Party].) Further, Plaintiff requests the Court enter final judgment in this action. (Proposed Order and Judgment.) Before the Court can rule on this motion, the Court needs clarification on the following issues:
1. How does the settlement affect Plaintiffs claims against Comcast?
2. Does Plaintiff intend to continue pursuing his claims against Comcast in this action after obtaining approval of his settlement with Bridge and ISI?
3. If Plaintiff does intend to pursue his claims against Comcast after obtaining approval of this settlement, how can the Court enter final judgment with pending claims remaining?
4. Does Plaintiff intend to dismiss Comcast from this action? There is no request for dismissal on file.
5. The original complaint in this action alleged class action claims against Bridge and ISI. In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff replaced all class causes of action with a single representative cause of action for penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Effectively, Plaintiff dismissed the class claims. However, Plaintiff did not get court approval
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
23CV008911: ANTHONY MACIAS ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED vs BRIDGE LOCATIONS LLC, et al. 04/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other For Approval of PAGA Settlement in Department 8A
before dismissing the class claims as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.770(a). The Court will construe the first amended complaint as dismissing the prior alleged class claims without prejudice but would like Plaintiff to confirm that was his intent with filing the first amended complaint. Plaintiffs counsel is reminded to comply with Rule 3.770 in the future.
Plaintiff is directed to file supplemental briefing to address these issues by no later than July 17, 2026. Any of the Defendants may also file a brief on the issues by no later than July 17, 2026. Due to the Courts calendar, the earliest available date this continued matter can be heard is August 7, 2026.
To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8a at 916-874-5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)
Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date.
If oral argument is requested, the parties may and are encouraged to appear by Zoom with the links below:
To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16108301121 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16108301121
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.
If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
23CV008911: ANTHONY MACIAS ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED vs BRIDGE LOCATIONS LLC, et al. 04/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other For Approval of PAGA Settlement in Department 8A
the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or further notice is necessary.