Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 09/12/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Intervene in Department 22

Tentative Ruling

Prospective Intervenor Barkhordarian Law Firm PC (“BLF”) moves to intervene pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 387. (Notice.)

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.

Background

On September 10, 2018, Plaintiffs Stacy O’Braza, Rachel Elias-Berg, and Heather Fichtner (“Plaintiffs”) initiated this wage and hour action against Defendant Dignity Health, 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.)

On June 6, 2025, the Court tentatively granted Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the Parties’ Class, Collective and PAGA Representative Action Settlement Agreement and Class Notice. (6-6-25 Minute Order.) The Court signed the Order granting preliminary approval on June 18, 2025. (6-18-25 Order.) The Agreement provides for an attorneys’ fee award of one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount ($1,666,666.67) and a Class Counsel litigation expenses payment of not more than $100,000. (6-6-25 Minute Order, citing SA, ¶ 3.2.2.)

The fee award will be allocated as follows: (1) 55% of the total attorneys’ fees awarded will be allocated to attorney Bryan J. Lazarski, Esq. and/or his firm, Lazarski Law Practice, P.C.; (2) 45% of the total attorneys’ fees awarded will be allocated to attorney Gregory P. Wong, Esq. and/or his firm, Lyfe Law, LLP. (Ibid., citing O’Braza Decl., ¶ 10; Elias-Berg Decl., ¶ 10; Fichtner Decl., ¶ 10.)

Shortly thereafter, BLF filed the instant motion for leave to intervene as former class counsel for the Plaintiffs in this action.

Analysis

CCP section 387 governs the intervention process. A nonparty may petition the court for leave to intervene by either noticed motion or ex parte application. (CCP, § 387(c).) Section 387 provides for both mandatory and permissive intervention, and courts construe the section liberally in favor of intervention. (Simpson Redwood Co. v. California (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1200.)

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 09/12/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Intervene in Department 22

Mandatory intervention under CCP section 387(d)(1) is appropriate if: (1) the intervenor has an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (2) the intervenor’s interest is not adequately represented by the parties to the action; (3) the intervenor is situated such that disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the intervenor’s motion is timely. (CCP, § 387(d)(1); Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. v.

Lacy (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 560, 572.) Alternatively, pursuant to CCP section 387(d)(2), trial courts have discretion to allow a party to intervene where (1) the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the action; (2) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the litigation; (3) the reasons for the intervention outweigh any opposition by the parties presently in the action; and (4) the proper procedures have been followed. (Royal Indemnity Co. v. United Enterprises, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 194, 203.) “Timeliness is determined by the totality of the circumstances facing would-be intervenors, with a focus on three primary factors: (1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for the delay.” (Crestwood, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 574 [internal quotations and citations omitted].)

BLF maintains that it satisfies the standards under both mandatory and permissive intervention. (Mot., pp. 5:6-13:3.) BLF’s motion is unopposed, which the Court construes as a concession on the merits. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion “it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes” that ground].)

The Court has reviewed BLF’s moving papers and proposed complaint in intervention and, in its discretion, concludes that (1) BLF has a direct and immediate interest in the action as former class counsel for the majority of the duration of the instant litigation; (2) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the litigation because the Court will assess the reasonableness and allocation of the attorneys’ fee award at final approval; (3) there is no opposition in the face of BLF’s articulated reasons for intervention; and (4) BLF’s motion is timely and proper. The Court does not opine on whether mandatory intervention is also appropriate.

Disposition

Accordingly, BLF’s motion to intervene is GRANTED on the basis of permissive intervention. BLF shall file and serve the Complaint in Intervention. The Court will sign the Proposed Order submitted with BLF’s moving papers.

While prior negotiations have been unsuccessful, the Court strongly encourages BLF and Plaintiffs’ Counsel to meet and confer in advance of final approval to resolve this dispute and/or propose an efficient process to resolve the Complaint in Intervention at final approval.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 09/12/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Intervene in Department 22

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 below:

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

Moving Counsel 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.