ANTHONY MACIAS ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED vs BRIDGE LOCATIONS LLC, et al.

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 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. Plaintiff’s counsel is reminded to comply with Rule 3.770 in the future. (4/17/26 Order.)

On July 17, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a supplemental declaration attesting to the following:

Item 1: Effect on Comcast Claims

3. This PAGA settlement does not affect the Aggrieved Employees’ claims against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. In fact, on July 16, 2026, Plaintiff has filed a Request for Dismissal of all PAGA representative action claims against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC without prejudice, and his individual claims against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC with prejudice.

Item 2: Future Pursuit of Comcast Claims

4. Plaintiff does not intend to pursue claims against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC in the future on an individual nor representative basis. In fact, on July 16, 2026, Plaintiff has filed a Request for Dismissal of all PAGA representative action claims against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC without prejudice, and his individual claims against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC with prejudice.

Item 3: Dismissal of Comcast Claims

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. 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other For Approval of PAGA Settlement in Department 8A

5. On July 16, 2026, Plaintiff has filed a Request for Dismissal of all PAGA representative action claims against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC without prejudice, and his individual claims against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC with prejudice.

Item 4: Dismissal of Class Claims

6. On July 16, 2026, Plaintiff has filed a Request for Dismissal of Class Action Claims against all defendants without prejudice in compliance with the California Rules of Court, Rule 3.770(a). (Suppl. Supanich Decl., ¶¶ 3-6.)

On July 16, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration in support of “Plaintiff’s Request for Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Individual Claims Against Defendant Comcast Cable Communications, LLC with Prejudice and Dismissal of Class Action Claims Without Prejudice,” wherein Plaintiff represents that on “June 29, 2024, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a confidential settlement agreement, resolving Plaintiff’s individual claims. No consideration was given, directly or indirectly, in exchange for the dismissal of the class action claims without prejudice.” (Cabral Decl., filed 7/16/26, ¶ 7.)

Further, Plaintiff states that pursuant to the settlement agreement, Plaintiff expressly agreed to entirely dismiss Defendant Comcast Cable Communications, LLC with prejudice, while preserving the non- individual PAGA representative claims asserted against Defendants Bridge Locations, LLC and ISI HR, Inc. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Plaintiff maintains that “[n]o potential class members have been notified of the preparation, filing, or pendency of this action by Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel either formally, informally, orally, in writing, individually, or as a group.” (Id. at ¶ 11.)

Based upon Plaintiff’s counsel’s representations, the Court will sign Plaintiff’s lodged “[Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiff’s Request for Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Individual Claims Against Defendant Comcast Cable Communications, LLC with Prejudice and Dismissal of Class Action Claims Without Prejudice.”

Plaintiff has sufficiently addressed the issues identified by the Court, and the Court will proceed to the merits.

Settlement

On June 23, 2025, the Plaintiff and Defendants Bridge Locations LLC and ISI HR, Inc.

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. 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other For Approval of PAGA Settlement in Department 8A

(collectively, “Parties”) attended an all-day mediation with mediator David Phillips. (Cabral Decl., ¶ 20.) While the matter did not resolve at mediation, the Parties remained engaged in negotiations with the mediator, and the Parties eventually reached a settlement. (Id. at ¶¶ 20-21.)

The Parties entered into a written settlement agreement now move for approval of the PAGA settlement. This ruling incorporates by reference the definitions in the Agreement and all capitalized terms defined therein shall have the same meaning in this ruling as set forth in the Agreement. (Cabral Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1 (“Agreement”).)

Prior to mediation, Plaintiff obtained, through informal discovery, various documents and information that allowed both sides to evaluate the potential exposure and potential risk, such as the operative employee handbook, policies and procedures related to the claims alleged in the Operative Complaint, Plaintiff's personnel files, payroll and time records, and a sample of time and pay records for the Aggrieved Employees. (Agreement, ¶ 2.4.)

Aggrieved Employees

Aggrieved Employees, are defined as, “all individuals who are or were employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California during the PAGA Period.” (Agreement, ¶ 1.4.) “PAGA Period” is defined to mean the period September 21, 2022, through the date of court approval of the settlement (August 14, 2026). (Id. at ¶ 1.19.) There are approximately 924 Aggrieved Employees who worked approximately 16,138 Pay Periods during the PAGA Period. (Cabral Decl., ¶ 56; Agreement ¶ 4.1.)

Within 14 days after Defendants fund the Gross Settlement Amount, the Administrator will mail checks for all Individual PAGA Payments, the LWDA PAGA Payment, the Administration Expenses Payment, the PAGA Counsel Fees Payment, the PAGA Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment, and the PAGA Representative Service Payment. (Agreement, ¶ 4.4) Disbursement of the PAGA Counsel Fees Payment, the PAGA Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment, and the PAGA Representative Service Payment shall not precede disbursement of Individual PAGA Payments. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff’s counsel gave notice of the Settlement Agreement to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”). (Cabral Decl., ¶ 80, Exh. 8.)

Settlement Administrator

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. 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other For Approval of PAGA Settlement in Department 8A

The Court approves Apex Class Action LLC as the Settlement Administrator.

Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable Settlement

The purpose of PAGA is to “create a means of ‘deputizing’ citizens as private attorneys general to enforce the Labor Code.” (Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 489, 501.) A PAGA plaintiff is an “aggrieved employee” who brings a civil action “personally and on behalf of other current or former employees to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations” as the “proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies.” (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 380; Lab.

Code, § 2699.) The settlement of a PAGA claim requires court approval pursuant to the operative PAGA statute, which states that the “[t]he superior court shall review and approve any settlement of any civil action filed pursuant to this part.” (Lab. Code, § 2699(l)(2).) Such review and approval must “ensur[e] that any negotiated resolution is fair to those affected.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549.)

Aside from the requirement that the court “review and approve” a settlement in a civil action filed under PAGA (Lab. Code, § 2699(l)(2)), PAGA itself does not provide a standard for this review and approval in the majority of PAGA cases. (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 75 (Moniz) [citing Flores v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide (C.D. Cal. 2017) 253 F.Supp.3d 1074, 1075 [“[PAGA] is surprisingly short on specifics”]].) In Moniz, the First District Court of Appeal clarified that a trial court “should evaluate a PAGA settlement to determine whether it is fair, reasonable, and adequate in view of PAGA’s purposes to remediate present labor law violations, deter future ones, and to maximize enforcement of state labor laws.” (Id. at p. 77.)

Because many of the factors used to evaluate class action settlements bear on a settlement’s fairness – including the strength of the plaintiff’s case, the risk, the stage of the proceeding, the complexity and likely duration of further litigation, and the settlement amount – these facts can be useful in evaluating the fairness of a PAGA settlement. (Ibid.)

Gross Settlement Amount

Defendants will pay a Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $400,000. (Agreement, ¶¶ 1.10, 3.1.) The GSA is non-reversionary. (Id. at ¶ 3.1) Pursuant to the Agreement, the following will be paid out of the GSA: (1) PAGA Representative Service Payment to the

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. 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other For Approval of PAGA Settlement in Department 8A

Plaintiff of not more than $5,000; (2) attorneys’ fees award equaling not more than 1/3 of the GSA (estimated to be $133,333.33) and litigation expenses payment not to exceed $20,000 to PAGA Counsel; (3) settlement administration costs not to exceed $25,000[1], absent good cause; and (4) PAGA Penalties in the amount of at least $216,666.67 will be paid from the GSA (75% of which (estimated to be $162,500) will be allocated to the LWDA PAGA Payment and 25% of which (estimated to be $54,166.67) will be allocated to the Individual PAGA Payments[2]). (Id. at ¶¶ 1.10, 1.11, 1.14, 1.15, 1.22, 3.1, 3.2.)

Aggrieved Employees assume full responsibility and liability for any taxes owed on their Individual PAGA Payment. (Agreement, ¶ 3.2.4.1) For any Aggrieved Employee whose Individual PAGA Payment check is uncashed and cancelled after the void date, the Administrator shall transmit the funds represented by such checks to the California State Controller's Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Aggrieved Employee. (Agreement, ¶ 4.4.3.)

PAGA Members will receive an average payment of $63.93. (Cabral Decl., ¶ 53.)

Escalator Clause

The Agreement contains the following escalator clause:

Based on its records, Defendants estimate that, as of the date of this Settlement Agreement, there are approximately 924 Aggrieved Employees who worked approximately 16,138 Pay Periods during the PAGA Period. If the number of pay periods worked by the Aggrieved Employees is greater than 10% above that estimated by Defendants, then the GSA shall be increased proportionately for each additional pay period worked above the 10% buffer. If this provision is triggered so as to increase the GSA, the Parties agree that the portion of the GSA allocated to attorneys' fees will increase proportionally such that the total amount of attorneys' fees remains one-third of the GSA after the upward adjustment required by this provision is implemented.

As an alternative, the Parties agree that Defendants retain the option to shorten the PAGA period to a point where this escalator clause is not triggered. (Agreement, ¶ 8.)

Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiffs request an attorneys’ fee award of $133,333.33, representing 1/3 of the GSA.

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. 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other For Approval of PAGA Settlement in Department 8A

(Agreement, ¶ 3.2.2; Cabral Decl., ¶ 69.) The Court finds the requested award to appropriate and reasonable under the common fund method.

Plaintiff requests an award of actual litigation costs in the amount of $15,385.84 (lower than the amount identified in the Agreement). (Cabral Decl., ¶ 78, Exh. 3.) The Court finds the claimed costs are reasonable.

Enhancement

Plaintiff requests a “PAGA Representative Service Payment” in the amount of $5,000. (Agreement, ¶¶ 1.23, 3.2.1.) Plaintiff has proffered his supporting declaration wherein he describes his involvement in this action, and provides an estimated amount of time spent on the case. (Macias Decl., ¶¶ 5, 8.) The Court finds this sufficient to support the requested service award.

Disposition

The papers demonstrate the settlement was reached after arms-length bargaining between the parties and was reached after sufficient discovery and negotiations, which allowed the Parties, and therefore, this Court, to act intelligently with respect to the settlement. Plaintiff’s counsel conducted an investigation into the facts and law and issues in this case, including the exchange of informal discovery and the review of relevant information. The settlement appears to be fair, reasonable, and adequate. (Cabral Decl., ¶¶ 23-68.)

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

The Court sets a Settlement Compliance Hearing for March 12, 2027, at 10:30 a.m., in Department 8A.

At least 15 days prior to the hearing, Counsel shall file a declaration regarding the status of the distribution of the settlement funds. If the Court is satisfied that the settlement funds have been fully distributed, no appearance will be required.

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers, with modifications to Paragraphs 16 and 21 (regarding the settlement compliance hearing) to be consistent with the above.

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. 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other For Approval of PAGA Settlement in Department 8A

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.)

If oral argument is requested, the parties may 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

Counsel for Plaintiff is directed to notice all parties of this order.

[1] While the Agreement identifies the amount of $25,000, Plaintiff’s counsel’s supporting

declaration attests that the actual cost of administration of the settlement will not exceed $9,900. (Cabral Decl., ¶ 70, Exh. 7.) [2] Plaintiff’s counsel attests these amounts (in light of certain changes/reductions) are

now $177,218.12 to the LWDA and $59,072.71 to Aggrieved Employees. (Cabral Decl., ¶ 66.)

Status Conference re: Settlement Compliance is scheduled for 03/12/2027 at 10:30 AM in Department 8A at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.