Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 04/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Stacy O’Braza, Rachel Elias-Berg, and Heather Fichtner (“Plaintiffs”) move for preliminary approval of the Parties’ class action and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) settlement. Plaintiffs’ motion is UNOPPOSED, but CONTINUED as follows.

On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement scheduled for 04/18/2025 is continued to 06/06/2025 at 9:00 AM in Department 22 at Gordon D. Schaber Superior Court.

Plaintiffs are expected to address the issues below my filing supplemental briefing and/or declarations no later than May 14, 2025. Defendant Dignity Health (“Defendant) may file a response no later than May 23, 2025.

Moving counsel’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise them of Local Rule 1.06, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing.

The Court has provided specific direction on the information and argument the Court requires to grant a motion for preliminary and final approval of a class action settlement. The Parties shall carefully review the Checklist for Approval of Class Action Settlements and fully comply with each applicable item to ensure a prompt ruling from the Court.

Moving Counsel’s declarations fail to attest that they have reviewed the Court’s checklist and their briefing complies with the checklist, as required by Local Rule 2.99.05. The Court, in its discretion, has nonetheless considered Plaintiffs’ motion. Counsel is admonished that any future failure to include the attestation in counsel’s declaration may result in the denial of the motion without prejudice. (Local Rule 2.99.05(C).) Failure to comply with the checklist may lead to an order to show cause regarding sanctions and/or a reduction in the requested attorneys’ fee award. (Id., 2.99.05(D).)

Background

On September 10, 2018, Plaintiffs initiated this wage and hour action against Defendant asserting causes of action for (1) Failure to Pay Regular, Overtime, and/or Double Time Wages; (2) Failure to Pay All Wages Upon Termination; (3) Failure to Provide Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements; (4) Violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, and (5) violation of PAGA. (Complaint.) On June 21, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification as to the Rounding, Waiting Time, and Wage Statement Subclasses. (6-21-22 Minute Order.)

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 04/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Plaintiffs now move for preliminary approval of the Parties’ Class, Collective and PAGA Representative Action Settlement Agreement and Class Notice (“Agreement”). (Wong Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A (“SA”).) Concurrent with the filing of the instant motion, Plaintiffs submitted the Agreement to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”). (Id., ¶ 25, Exh. C.)

Legal Standard

The law favors the settlement of lawsuits, particularly in class actions and other complex cases where substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, expense, and rigors of formal litigation. (See Neary v. Regents of Univ. of Cal (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273, 277-281; Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 19, 52.) However, a class action may not be dismissed, compromised, or settled without approval of the court, and the decision to approve or reject a proposed settlement is committed to the court’s sound discretion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769; Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 234-35 (Wershba).)

In determining whether to approve a class settlement, the court’s responsibility is to “prevent fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class” through settlement because the rights of the class members, including the named plaintiffs, “may not have been given due regard by the negotiating parties.” (Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Kintetsu Enters. of Am. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 46, 60.) The court must independently determine “whether the settlement is in the best interests of those whose claims will be extinguished” and “make an independent assessment of the reasonableness of the terms to which the parties have agreed.” (Kullar v.

Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 130, 133.) The burden of establishing the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement is on the proponent. (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 245; see also 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1165-66.)

The Court does not rubber stamp these motions, but rather serves as a guardian of absent class members’ rights to ensure the settlement is fair. (Luckey v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 81, 95.) “Ultimately, the [trial] court’s determination is nothing more than ‘an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough justice.” (7-Eleven, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 1145.) “A settlement need not obtain 100 percent of the damages sought in order to be fair and reasonable. Compromise is inherent and necessary in the settlement process.

Thus, even if 'the relief afforded by the proposed settlement is substantially narrower than it would be if the suits were to be successfully litigated,' this is no bar to a class settlement because 'the public interest may indeed be served by a voluntary settlement in which each side gives ground in the interest of avoiding litigation.'” (Wershba, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 250, citations omitted.) The court’s primary objective for preliminary approval is to establish whether to direct notice of the proposed settlement to the class, invite the class’s reaction, and schedule a final fairness hearing. (Rubenstein et al., Newberg on Class Actions (6th ed. 2023) § 13:10.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 04/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

Summary of the Settlement Agreement

Here, Plaintiffs represent the following class: “all Registered Nurses and Licensed Vocational Nurses who were: (1) employed by Defendant [] at each of the Sacramento Hospitals’ Medical- Surgical, Telemetry, or Specialty Care units, or other similar units having a 1:4 or 1:5 nurse-topatient ratio as defined and required by 22 C.C.R. 70217(a)(10-12); and (2) worked for Defendant during the Class Period for a period of at least one (1) Workweek.” (SA, ¶ 1.5.) The Sacramento Hospitals are defined to include the following hospitals in the Sacramento area: (a) Woodland Memorial Hospital, (b) Mercy General Hospital, (c) Mercy Folsom Hospital, (d) Mercy San Juan Hospital, (e) Methodist Hospital of Sacramento, (f) Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital, and (g) Mercy Redding Hospital. (Id., ¶ 1.48.) The Class Period means the period from September 10, 2014 through Preliminary Approval. (Id., ¶ 1.12.)

Under the terms of the Agreement, Defendant denies liability, but agrees to pay a Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $5,000,000 to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims. (SA, ¶¶ 1.23, 3.1, 11.1.) Defendant will be responsible for any and all Employer Paid Taxes required by law on the wage portions of the Individual Class Payments to Class Members, separate and in addition to the GSA. (Id., ¶ 1.23.) The Administrator will disburse the entire GSA without asking or requiring Participating Class Members or Aggrieved Employees to submit any claim as a condition of payment, and none of the GSA will revert to Defendant. (Id., ¶ 3.1.)

Defendant shall fully fund the GSA, and also fund the amounts necessary to fully pay the Employer Paid Taxes by transmitting the funds to the Administrator no later than 21 calendar days after the Effective Date. (Id., ¶ 4.2.) The “Effective Date” means the date on which the final approval order becomes final. (Id., ¶ 1.18.) The order granting final approval “becomes final” only after the Court grants the Motion for Final Approval, enters Judgment, and upon service of the Notice of Entry of Order and/or Judgment, and upon the latter of: (i) if no appeal, or other challenge is filed, the 61st day following Notice of Entry of the Court’s Order and/or Judgment; (ii) the date of affirmance of an appeal of the Order Granting Final Approval and/or Judgment becomes final under the California Rules of Court; or (iii) the date of final dismissal of any appeal from the Order Granting Final Approval and/or Judgment or the final dismissal of any proceeding on review of any court of appeal decision relating to the Order Granting Final Approval and/or Judgment, and issuance of remittitur. (Ibid.)

The following amounts will be paid from the GSA: - Class Representative service payments to each Class Representative of $20,000, totaling $60,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.) - A Class Counsel fees payment of not more than one-third of the GSA, which is estimated to be $1,666,666.67, and a Class Counsel litigation expenses payment of not more than $100,000. (Id., ¶ 3.2.2.) - An administration expenses payment not to exceed $25,000 except for a showing of good cause and as approved by the Court. (Id., ¶ 3.2.3.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 04/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

- PAGA penalties in the amount of $100,000, with 75% ($75,000) allocated to the LWDA and 25% ($25,000) allocated to the Aggrieved Employees. (Id., ¶ 3.2.5.)

The remaining amount – the Net Settlement Amount (“NSA”) – is approximately $3,048,333.33 and will be distributed to the Participating Class Members as Individual Class Payments on a pro-rata basis. (SA, ¶¶ 1.25, 1.30.) An Individual Class Payment will be calculated by (a) dividing the Net Settlement Amount by the total number of Workweeks worked by all Participating Class Members during the Class Period and (b) multiplying the result by each Participating Class Member’s Workweeks. (Id., ¶ 3.2.4.)

Similarly, the Aggrieved Employees’ portion of the PAGA penalties will be allocated on a pro-rata basis as Individual PAGA Payments. (Id., ¶¶ 1.25, 3.2.5.1.) The Administrator will calculate each Individual PAGA Payment by (a) dividing the amount of the Aggrieved Employees’ share of Aggrieved Employee PAGA Amount by the total number of PAGA Period Pay Periods worked by all Aggrieved Employees during the PAGA Period and (b) multiplying the result by each Aggrieved Employee’s PAGA Period Pay Periods. (Id., ¶ 3.2.5.1.)

For tax purposes, 20% of each Participating Class Member’s Individual Class Payment will be allocated to settlement of wage claims and will be reported on an IRS W-2 Form. (SA, ¶ 3.2.4.1.) The remaining 80% will be allocated to settlement of claims for interest and penalties and will be reported on IRS 1099 Forms. (Ibid.) The Administrator will report the Individual PAGA Payments on IRS 1099 Forms and 100% of such payments will be allocated as penalties. (Id., ¶ 3.2.5.2.) The Administrator will issue checks for the Individual Class Payments and/or Individual PAGA Payments. (Id., ¶ 4.3.1.)

The face of each check shall prominently state the date (not less than 180 calendar days after the date of mailing) when the check will be voided. (Ibid.) For any Class Member whose Individual Class Payment check or 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 Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Class Member. (Id., ¶ 4.3.3.)

Not later than 15 court days after the Court grants Preliminary Approval, Defendant will deliver the Class Data to the Administrator. (SA, ¶ 4.1.) Using best efforts to perform as soon as possible, and in no event later than 14 calendar days after receiving the Class Data, the Administrator will send to all Class Members identified in the Class Data, via first-class United States Postal Service (“USPS”) mail, the Class Notice. (Id., ¶ 7.4.2.) Not later than 3 court days after the Administrator’s receipt of any Class Notice returned by the USPS as undelivered, the Administrator shall re-mail the Class Notice using any forwarding address provided by the USPS. (Id., ¶ 7.4.3.)

If the USPS does not provide a forwarding address, the Administrator shall conduct a Class Member Address Search, and re-mail the Class Notice to the most current address obtained. (Ibid.) Class Members will have 45 calendar days from the date the Class Notice is first mailed to object to the settlement, request exclusion from the settlement, and/or dispute their workweek calculations. (Id., ¶¶ 1.47, 7.4.4, 7.5.1, 7.6, 7.7.2.) If a Class Member’s Notice is re-mailed, the Response Deadline will be extended an additional 14 calendar days

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 04/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

beyond the 45 calendar days otherwise provided in the Class Notice. (Id., ¶¶ 1.47, 7.4.4.)

Issues to be Addressed:

1. LWDA Notices: Plaintiffs fail to provide copies of their notices to the LWDA. The Agreement references an amended notice filed on February 27, 2025, for the purposes of effectuating the settlement. (SA, ¶ 2.1.) Given the inclusion of a claim for PAGA penalties in the Complaint, the Court assumes that Plaintiffs filed an original notice prior to September 10, 2018. Plaintiffs must provide copies of their original and any amended LWDA notices.

2. First Amended Complaint: The Agreement indicates that “[i]n connection with this settlement (and for settlement purposes only), [] the Parties agree to stipulate to Plaintiffs filing a First Amended Complaint in the Action.” (SA, ¶¶ 2.1, 6.) However, no such joint stipulation appears in the Court’s Register of Actions and Plaintiffs have not filed the contemplated First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The Parties shall file their stipulation, and Plaintiffs shall file their FAC before the continued hearing date.

3. Exposure Analysis: As the Court’s Checklist makes clear, Counsel’s exposure analysis “should specify the maximum and realistic exposure estimate for each claim asserted in the operative complaint; explain the underlying assumptions (for example, in a wage and hour case, this might include the number of pay periods at issue, violation rates, the average hourly rate of pay, the number of terminated employees for waiting time penalties, etc.) and methodologies used to calculate those estimates; describe the defenses asserted by Defendant(s); provide a summary of the risks, expenses, and duration of further litigation if the settlement is not approved; specify any discounts/reductions applied to arrive at a realistic exposure; and any other relevant factors justifying the amount offered in settlement.” (Checklist, § I, ¶ 13.)

Here, Counsel provides Defendant’s maximum exposure, but fails to provide the underlying assumptions or methodologies used to calculate those estimates. (See Wong Decl., ¶¶ 5-12.) In addition, Counsel’s summary chart omits Plaintiffs’ unpaid business expenses claim and lists that exposure ($25,803,892) for Plaintiffs’ waiting time claim (which is actually valued at $758,644). (Id., ¶ 12.) This error is then carried forward into Counsel’s risk assessment discussion and summary chart. (Id., ¶¶ 20, 22.) Counsel also fails to provide a risk assessment for Plaintiffs’ unpaid business expenses claim. Counsel must expand on this discussion. In addition, Counsel is expected to exercise care and diligence in preparing materials for the Court’s review.

Finally, to the extent that the FAC adds or expands on Plaintiffs’ claims, Counsel shall ensure that those claims are adequately addressed in Counsel’s exposure analysis.

4. PAGA Penalties Amount: The Agreement includes two definitions of the PAGA penalties amount. The Agreement defines “PAGA Penalties” as “the total amount of $50,000.00 in PAGA civil penalties.” (SA, ¶ 1.37.) However, the Agreement later refers to “PAGA penalties

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 04/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

in the amount of $100,000.00 to be paid from the [GSA].” (Id., ¶ 3.2.5.) Plaintiffs’ moving papers otherwise only refer to the $100,000 amount. The Court assumes the $100,000 amount is correct, but Plaintiffs must confirm.

5. Check-Cashing Deadline: Plaintiffs’ moving papers assert that a 120-day check cashing deadline “is appropriate because the vast majority of Class members are located in California and have received Class Notice previously and should be able to more quickly understand the reason and nature of the settlement check.” (Mot., p. 5:7-10, citing SA, ¶ 4.3.1.) However, the Agreement actually provides that the “face of each check shall prominently state the date (not less than 180 calendar days after the date of mailing) when the check will be voided.” (SA, ¶ 4.3.1.) The Court generally prefers a 180-day check cashing period, but would consider a shortened check-cashing deadline under the circumstances. In any event, the Parties are expected to clarify.

6. Release: With regard to the class release, the Agreement provides as follows:

Plaintiffs and all Participating Class Members, on behalf of themselves and their respective former and present representatives, agents, attorneys, heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns, shall fully and finally release the Released Parties of the “Released Class Claims.” The Released Class Claims include all claims asserted in the Action, as amended, and/or arising from or related to the facts and claims alleged in the Action, as amended, or that could have been raised in the Action, as amended, based on the facts and claims alleged. The Released Class Claims include all claims for unpaid wages, including, failure to pay minimum wages, straight time compensation, overtime compensation, double-time compensation, and interest; the calculation of the regular rate of pay; wages related to alleged illegal time rounding; missed/short/late/interrupted meal period, rest period, and/or recovery period wages/premiums; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods and/or recovery periods; the calculation of meal period, rest period, and/or recovery period premiums; payment for all hours worked, including off-the- clock work; wage statements; SMRH:4906-3614-0048.3 -13- deductions; failure to keep/maintain accurate records including payroll records; unfair business practices related to the Released Class Released Claims; penalties, including, but not limited to, recordkeeping penalties, wage statement penalties, minimum-wage penalties, and waiting-time penalties; and attorneys’ fees and costs; all claims related to the Released Class Claims arising under: the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 04/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

California Labor Code (including, but not limited to, sections 200, 201, 201.3, 201.5, 201.6, 201.7, 201.8, 201.9, 202, 203, 204, 206, 210, 216, 218, 218.5, 218.6, 221, 223, 224, 225, 225.5, 226, 226.3, 227.3, 256, 510, 511, 512, 515, 516, 550, 551, 552, 554, 558, 1174, 1174.5, 1194, 1194.2, 1194.3, 1197, 1197.1, 1197.2, 1198, and 2698 et seq., 2699 et seq.); the Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission; the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”); California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.; and federal common law.

This release excludes the release of claims not permitted by law. Participating Class Members who timely cash or otherwise negotiate their Settlement Payment Check will be deemed to have opted into the Action for purposes of the FLSA and, as to those Class Members, the Released Class Claims include any and all claims the Class Members may have under the FLSA asserted in the Action, arising from or related to the facts and claims alleged in the Action, or that could have been alleged in the Action based on the facts and claims alleged in the Action, as amended, during the Class Period. Only those Class Members who timely cash or otherwise negotiate their Settlement Payment Check will be deemed to have opted into the Action for purposes of the FLSA and thereby release and waive any of their claims under the FLSA arising under or relating to the alleged claims.

The following language will be printed on the reverse of each Settlement Payment Check, or words to this effect: “By endorsing or otherwise negotiating this check, I acknowledge that I read, understood, and agree to the terms set forth in the Notice of Class Action Settlement and I consent to join in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) portion of the [Action], elect to participate in the settlement of the FLSA claims, and agree to release all of my FLSA claims that are covered by the Settlement.”

Upon entry of Judgment, Class Members are precluded from filing a wage and hour action under the Fair Labor Standards Act against the Released Parties for claims and/or causes of action encompassed by the Released Class Claims which are extinguished and precluded pursuant to the holding in Rangel v. PLS Check Cashers of California, Inc., 899 F.3d 1106 (2018).

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 04/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

(SA, ¶ 5.2 [emphasis added].) First, the inclusion of emphasized references to PAGA in the class release are duplicative and unnecessary in light of the separate release by Aggrieved Employees. The Court believes that the cleaner approach is to have separate class and PAGA releases, and this approach is consistent with the governing case law. (See Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Management, LLC (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 521, 538-539, 541, fn. 5; Uribe v. Crown Building Maintenance Co. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 986, 1005.) Accordingly, the Court believes the abovequoted language should be removed.

Next, there are no FLSA claims asserted here. Accordingly, the Court believes that the emphasized language in the release suggesting otherwise (“asserted in this Action”) should be removed. While Amaro permits the affirmative release of FLSA claims not alleged in the action and the inclusion of check-cashing “opt-in” language in a state wage and hour settlement, the Agreement’s reference to Rangel v. PLS Check Cashers of Cal., Inc. (9th Cir. 2018) 899 F.3d 1106 is confusing and unnecessary. Rangel considered whether a broad release of all claims alleged or that could have been alleged based on the factual allegations in an earlier state wage and hour class action settlement operated to bar a subsequently filed FLSA claim based on the same underlying facts. (Id., at pp. 1110-1111.)

As noted in Amaro, “[s]ignificantly, though, the Ninth Circuit [in Rangel] expressly declined to address the issue we face here: whether a plaintiff can circumvent the FLSA’s opt-in requirement by ‘first bringing state law labor claims in an optout class action, then reaching a settlement that extends to the FLSA.’ (Rangel, at pp. 1111- 1112.)” (Amaro, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 540.) Accordingly, Rangel is inapposite here where the Parties are attempting to expressly release FLSA claims through the settlement of this state wage and hour action.

The Court will not require this reference to Rangel to be removed, but, going forward, the Court urges the Parties to carefully consider the language included in any class releases to ensure it complies with the governing case law and avoids unnecessary confusion.

If the Parties accept the Court’s proposed revisions, Plaintiffs shall provide proof of amendment and submission of the amended Agreement to the LWDA.

7. Proposed Class Notice: The notice to Class Members must fairly apprise the prospective members of the terms of the settlement without expressing an opinion on the merits of the settlement. (7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1164; see also Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769.) “Whether a claimant would want to accept or reject the proposed settlement is a decision to be made by him independently and without influence or pressure from those competing parties who either favor or oppose the settlement.” (Phila. Hous. Auth. v. Am. Radiator & Std. Sanitary Corp. (E.D. Pa. 1970) 323 F.Supp. 364, 378.)

Here, the following issues must be addressed in the Class Notice: - If the Parties accept the Court’s proposed revisions to the class release, the Notice must be revised accordingly. (SA, Exh. A (“Notice”), p. 6.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 04/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

- The Notice provides that the “Court may allow remote/virtual appearances” and directs the Class Members to the Court’s website. (Id., p. 9.) The Notice should notify Class Members that if they desire to appear remotely, they can join via the Department’s Zoom link or phone number and provide the following access information for the Department in the Notice: To join by Zoom link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept22; To join by phone: (833) 568-8864 / ID: 16184738886.

Plaintiffs shall provide a revised Notice and redline copy for the Court’s review.

The Plaintiffs are advised to review their entire motion and make any other necessary changes to fully comply with the Court’s Checklist.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 22 at (916) 874-5762 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.)

Parties requesting services of a court reporter may arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §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. The list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore is available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf.

If you are not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, a Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge. The signed form must be filed with the clerk prior to the hearing.

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). The form must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the hearing is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

If oral argument is requested, the Parties are encouraged to appear via Zoom with the links

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 04/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Department 22

below:

To join by Zoom link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept22 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16184738886

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

Please note that the Complex Civil Case Department now provides information to assist you in managing your complex case on the Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/civil/complex-civil-cases.aspx. The Court strongly encourages parties to review this website regularly to stay abreast of the most recent complex civil case procedures. Please refer to the website before directly contacting the Court Clerk for information.