Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Stacy O’Braza, Rachel Elias-Berg, and Heather Fichtner’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion for final approval of class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action settlement is UNOPPOSED and tentatively GRANTED, pending the final fairness hearing and subject to the clarification sought below regarding the Administrator’s report and the reduction in Plaintiffs’ service awards. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 382; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.769.) Accordingly, the Parties’ APPEARANCE IS REQUIRED. [1]

Plaintiffs separately move for attorneys’ fees and costs. In the interests of juridical economy and efficiency, the Court addresses both motions in a single Tentative ruling.

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.

Status Conference (Compliance Hearing) is scheduled for 08/21/2026 at 10:30 AM in Department 8B at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.

Status Conference (Distribution Compliance Hearing) is scheduled for 06/25/2027 at 10:30 AM in Department 8B at Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse.

The Court has provided specific direction on the information and argument the Court requires to grant 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 declaration fails 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).)

NOTICE:

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

The Parties are encouraged to appear via Zoom with the links below:

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

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to 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. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore.

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.

Background

On September 10, 2018, 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 the same day, Plaintiffs notified the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) of Plaintiffs’ intent to seek civil penalties pursuant to PAGA. (Supp. MPA, Exh. B.) On February 27, 2025, Plaintiffs submitted an amended PAGA Notice. (Id., Exh. C.)

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 granted Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the Parties’ Class, Collective and PAGA Representative Action Settlement Agreement and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

Class Notice (“Agreement”). (6-6-25 Minute Order; Wong Decl. ISO Prelim. App., ¶ 3, Exh. A (“SA”).)[1] On June 26, 2025, the Court granted the Parties’ stipulation to amend the Agreement’s class release and file the First Amended Complaint. (6-26-25 Stipulation and Order.)

On September 12, 2025, the Court granted Barkhordarian Law Firm PC’s (“BLF” or “Intervenor”) motion to intervene. (9-12-25 Minute Order.) On September 15, 2025, BLF filed its Complaint in Intervention seeking an equitable allocation of the total fee award. (Complaint in Intervention.)

Plaintiffs now move for final approval of the Parties’ Agreement. Concurrent with the filing of the instant motion, Plaintiffs provided a copy of the Agreement to the LWDA. (Wong Decl. re Service, ¶ 3.)

Legal Standard

Courts review class action settlements in a three-stage process: (1) an earlier conditional review by the court; (2) a period during which notice is distributed to class members for their comments or objections; and (3) a later detailed review after the notice period when the court decides whether to give “final approval.” (Rubenstein, Newberg and Rubinstein on Class Actions (6th Ed. 2025) § 13:1 (Newberg); see also Cal. R. Ct. Rule 3.769.) This procedure, which is commonly utilized by both federal and state courts, assures class members of the protection of procedural due process safeguards and enables a court to fulfill its role as the guardian of the interest of the settlement class.

As required by the applicable Rule of Court, the Court must conduct a final approval hearing to inquire into the fairness of the proposed settlement. (Cal. R. Ct., Rule 3.769(g).) The Court has broad discretion to determine whether a proposed settlement in a class action is fair. (Mallick v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 434, 438.) The law favors settlement, particularly in class actions and other complex cases where substantial resources can be conserved by avoiding the time, cost, and rigors of formal litigation. (See Newberg, supra, § 13:44 (and cases cited therein); Class Plaintiffs v.

City of Seattle (9th Cir. 1992) 955 F.2d 1268, 1276; Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp. (9th Cir. 1976) 529 F.2d 943, 950.) In approving a class action settlement, the Court must “satisfy itself that the class settlement is within the ‘ballpark’ of reasonableness.” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 133.) In making its fairness determination, the Court should consider the relevant factors, such as the strength of the plaintiffs’ case, the risk, expenses, complexity and likely duration of further litigation, the risk of maintaining class action status through trial, the amount offered in settlement, the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings, the experience and views of counsel, and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

(Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) “The most important factor is the strength of the case for plaintiffs on the merits, balanced against the amount offered in settlement.” (Kullar, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 130 [internal quotes omitted].) Ultimately, the court's determination is simply “an amalgam of delicate balancing, gross approximations and rough justice.” (Id., at p. 1801.)

Settlement Agreement and Class Response

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.[2] (Id., ¶ 4.2.)

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.) - 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

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 within 14 calendar days after Defendant funds the GSA. (Id., ¶¶ 4.3, 4.3.1.)

Before mailing any checks, the Settlement Administrator must update the recipients’ mailing addresses using the National Change of Address Database. (Id., ¶ 4.3.1.) Within 7 calendar days of receiving a returned check the Administrator must re-mail checks to the USPS forwarding address provided or to an address ascertained through the Class Member Address Search. (Id., ¶ 4.3.2.) 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. (Id., ¶ 4.3.1.)

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.)

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;

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

the calculation of meal period, rest period, and/or recovery period premiums; payment for all hours worked, including off-the-clock work; wage statements; 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 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, and 1198); the Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission; 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, 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

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).

(SA, ¶ 5.2 [as amended].)

Separately, “Plaintiff, the [LWDA], and the State of California through Plaintiffs as its agents and/or proxies, and all Aggrieved Employees, [] shall release the Released Parties from all claims for civil penalties under PAGA that were alleged, or could have been alleged, based on the facts asserted in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, as amended, and/or in the PAGA Notice, including but not limited to, 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; deductions; failure to keep/maintain accurate records including payroll records; unfair business practices related to the Released PAGA 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 PAGA Claims arising under: the California Labor Code (including, but not limited to, sections 200, 201, 201.3, 201.5, 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, 2698 et seq., and 2699 et seq.); and the Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission.” (SA, ¶ 5.3.) Plaintiffs are subject to general releases. (Id., ¶ 5.1.)

Laura Singh, a Case Manager for CPT Group, Inc. (“CPT”) attests that the Courtapproved Notice was mailed to all individuals identified in the class data via U.S. First Class Mail on May 18, 2026, after conducting a National Change of Address database search. (Singh Decl., ¶¶ 3-8.) The class data contained 21,251 PAGA Members, of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

which 5,263 are also Class Members. (Id., ¶ 5.)

On June 4, 2026, CPT received calls from two Class Members advising that they received a Notice Packet belonging to another Class Member. (Singh Decl., ¶ 9.) Upon review of the data received in June 2025 and the data received in May 2026, CPT found that there was a data discrepancy. (Ibid.) Counsel for the Defendant reviewed the data and advised that the mistake was their responsibility. (Ibid.) As a result, CPT suggested a corrective mailing to the 1,621 Class Members that were affected by the discrepancy. (Ibid.) The corrective mailing will be completed by June 19, 2026. (Ibid.) The Administrator does not provide a deadline for these individuals to submit disputes, requests for exclusion, or objections. Assuming they are provided a full 45 days to respond, their deadline will be August 8, 2026. The Administrator must confirm.

As of June 15, 2026, a total of 1,390 Notices were returned as undeliverable and 45 were forwarded directly by the U.S. Postal Service. (Singh Decl., ¶ 10.) For the Notice Packets returned from the post office without a forwarding address, CPT attempted to locate a current mailing address using skip tracing. (Ibid.) As a result of a forwarding address, skip trace efforts, and Class Member request, a total of 1,289 Notice Packets were re-mailed to Class Members. (Id., ¶ 11.) Additionally, CPT forwarded 7 Notice Packets. (Ibid.) A total of 108 Notice Packets remain undeliverable with no forwarding address and no new correct mailing address through skip trace. (Ibid.)

For the initially mailed Notices, the deadline to submit disputes, requests for exclusion or objections was July 2, 2026. (Singh Decl., ¶ 8.) However, as of June 15, 2026, CPT attests that it received 3 late disputes that are pending review by the attorneys and remain unresolved. (Id., ¶ 11.) In contrast, Plaintiff’s moving papers claim that there are no outstanding disputes. (Mot., p. 1:19.) The Administrator must clarify, including how these disputes could be late if the response deadline was after the date of the Administrator’s declaration.

CPT has not received any objections to the settlement. (Singh Decl., ¶ 13.) CPT received 41 timely and valid requests for exclusion. (Id., ¶ 14.) However, the Administrator fails to identify these individuals. The Administrator must do so now.

Accordingly, CPT reports a total of 5,222 participating Class Members, representing 99.22% of the Class.[3] (Singh Decl., ¶ 16.) Prior to the deduction of employee-side state and federal taxes, the average estimated Individual Settlement Payment is $580.81, the highest estimated payment is $1,223.35, and the lowest estimated payment is $2.13. (Id., ¶ 18.)

Counsel attests to their extensive experience in similar cases. (Lazarski Decl. ISO Fees Mot., ¶¶ 2, 9-11, 17-19; Wong Decl. ISO Fees Mot., ¶¶ 5, 13-19.) Having provided

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

sufficient information regarding damage analysis at preliminary approval, the Court is inclined to find, subject to the final fairness hearing, that the Settlement is within the ballpark of reasonableness and is entitled to a presumption of fairness and all relevant factors presently support final approval.

PAGA Payment

The Agreement provides for 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. (SA, ¶ 3.2.5.) The Aggrieved Employees means “all current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant during the PAGA Period at the Sacramento Hospitals for at least one (1) Workweek.” (Id., ¶ 1.4.) The PAGA Period means “the period from September 10, 2014 through Preliminary Approval.” (Id., ¶ 1.34.) As discussed above, the Aggrieved Employees will receive a pro rata share of the 25% portion of the PAGA penalties payment and are subject to a separate release. (Id., ¶¶ 3.2.5.1, 5.3.) The Agreement makes clear that “Aggrieved Employees will be bound by the release of the Released PAGA Claims regardless of their decision to participate in or opt out of the release of the Released Class Claims.” (Id., ¶ 5.3.)

CPT reports 21,251 Aggrieved Employees. (Singh Decl., ¶ 5.) The average Individual PAGA Payment is estimated to be $1.18. The highest payment is estimated to be $2.59, and the lowest estimated payment is $0.01. (Id., ¶ 19.) Having previously found Counsel’s valuation well-reasoned and persuasive at the preliminary approval stage, the PAGA Penalty is tentatively approved.

Class Counsel Fees and Costs

Courts generally recognize two methods for calculating fees in civil class actions: the lodestar/multiplier method and the percentage-of-recovery method. (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 254.) “The percentage method calculates the fee as a percentage share of a recovered common fund or the monetary value of plaintiffs’ recovery. The lodestar method, or more accurately the lodestar-multiplier method, calculates the fee ‘by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by counsel by a reasonable hourly rate.’” (Laffitte v.

Robert Half Internat. Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 489.) In determining fees and costs to be awarded to Class Counsel, the Court must exercise its judicial function and make a decision on the propriety of the fees requested; it should not, and does not, abdicate its charge to make a decision simply because the parties may have reached their own agreement in this regard. The choice of a fee calculation method is generally one within the discretion of the trial court, the goal “being the award of a reasonable fee to compensate counsel for their efforts.” (Id. at p. 504.) “‘The lodestar method better accounts for the amount of work done, while the percentage of the fund method more accurately reflects the results achieved.’ Each has

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

been championed and criticized for its respective advantages and disadvantages.” (Ibid., quoting Rawlings v. Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc. (6th Cir. 1993) 9 F.3d 513, 516.)

The Agreement provides for an attorneys’ fee award of one-third of the GSA ($1,666,666.67) and a Class Counsel litigation expenses payment of not more than $100,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.2.) Counsel have agreed to share any award of attorney fees 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. (O’Braza Decl.

ISO Prelim. App., ¶ 10; Elias-Berg Decl. ISO Prelim. App., ¶ 10; Fichtner Decl. ISO Prelim. App., ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs have agreed to this proposed arrangement. (Ibid.) Through the Complaint in Intervention and opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, BLF seeks an equitable allocation of Mr. Wong’s portion of the requested fee award. (See generally, Fees Opp. and Fees Sur-Reply.)

Reasonableness of Fee Award

Counsel seeks an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,666,666.67 and reasonable costs totaling $28,577.22. (Fees Notice.) Plaintiffs argue that the requested fee award is reasonable as a percentage of the common fund. (Fees Mot., pp. 7:18- 9:12.) Plaintiffs further argue that the requested award is supported by a lodestar cross check. (Id., pp. 9:13-12:18.)

The lodestar is broken down as follows:

Attorney Experience Rate Time Total Bryan Lazarski 19 years $800 515.00 $412,000.00 Gregory Wong 27 years $775 321.50 $249,162.50

Total: 836.50 $661,162.50

(Lazarski Decl., ¶¶ 3, 14, 19, Exh. A; Wong Decl. ISO Fees Mot., ¶¶ 7-11, 13, 20, Exh. B.) Counsel adequately describes the tasks performed and the time spent on those tasks. (Ibid.) Counsel’s lodestar requires a multiplier of approximately 2.52.

The requested award is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

Allocation Between Counsel

Intervenor does not challenge the reasonableness of the total requested award, but challenges the allocation between Mr. Lazarski, Mr. Wong, and Intervenor.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

Analogizing to a discharged contingent-fee attorney, Intervenor cites to California jurisprudence addressing quantum meruit principles. (Fees Opp., pp. 7:1-9:14.) Because the dispute here involves an attorney who changed firms during the pendency of the action, Intervenor argues that the stage of litigation and the risk borne at that time – not Mr. Wong’s skill and experience – control the analysis. Citing Cazares v. Saenz (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 279, 286-288, Intervenor argues that a fee division must reflect each attorney’s proportional contribution to the ultimate recovery. (Fees Opp., pp. 8:16- 9:14.) Specifically, Intervenor maintains that – notwithstanding the proportion of hours worked – the actual work performed while Mr. Wong was employed with Intervenor was critical to the underlying settlement. (Id., pp. 9:15-12:10.)

Mr. Wong disagrees, arguing that Intervenor did not bear a disproportionate risk, Intervenor’s argument “double counts” contingent risk already accounted for in the lodestar analysis, the requested allocation is “arbitrary and unreasonable,” and Intervenor’s arguments are supported by inapposite authority. (See generally, Fees Reply.)

Intervenor maintains that it should receive 85% of Mr. Wong’s fee award. Given Mr. Wong’s 45% share of the requested award ($750,000), this approach would result in an award of $637,500 to Intervenor and $112,500 to Mr. Wong/Lyfe Law. Mr. Wong maintains that the appropriate allocation is a kind of lodestar: the hours spent while employed with Intervenor, multiplied by his hourly rate, and the proposed multiplier of 2.52. This would result in an award of $159,169.50 to Intervenor and $590,830.50 to Mr. Wong/Lyfe Law.

A simple hours-based analysis would suggest that Intervenor was entitled to approximately 25% of Mr. Wong’s portion of the total fee award (81.50 hours during the relevant period divided by 321.50 total hours worked by Mr. Wong during this action equals 0.2535). This would result in an award of $187,500 to Intervenor and $562,500 to Mr. Wong/Lyfe Law. However, like Mr. Wong’s proposal, this analysis ignores that the work performed during that time was some of the most significant and carried the greatest contingent risk.

For example, during his time at Intervenor, Mr. Wong engaged with an expert, opposed summary judgment, certified the Class, and engaged in an extensive data review before the Mandatory Settlement Conference. (Wong Decl. ISO Fees Mot., ¶ 8, Exh. B.) That same work informed and facilitated the settlement now before the Court.[4] Thus, the Court is not persuaded that a simple hours-based analysis or Mr. Wong’s lodestar-esque approach is appropriate under the circumstances. (See Cazares, supra, 208 Cal.App.3d at p. 291, fn 10 [“where a second attorney is retained or associated to complete the case after a substantial amount of work has already been completed, the contingency facing the second attorney may well be less than faced the first attorney at the outset of the case; the anticipated delay in receiving payment will

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

undoubtedly be less. These factors may require an adjustment in the proportions in favor of the first attorney.”].) Contrary to Counsel’s suggestion, that is not “double counting” risk – it is appropriately considering how to divide the contingent risk between two firms that bore the risk unequally at different stages. Apportionment among counsel remains a distinct inquiry.

That said, the Court is not persuaded that Intervenor’s proposed division is appropriate either. Counsel is correct that Intervenor offers no authority or quantitative basis supporting this percentage. (See Fees Reply, pp. 3:25-4:3.) Intervenor’s approach emphasizes the disparate contingent risk but fails to acknowledge the importance of mediation and settlement approval. That is not merely the “administrative tail” or oversight of a settlement already secured.[5] The settlement was not reached until November 2024, and the Agreement was not executed until spring 2025, both well after Mr. Wong left Intervenor and joined Lyfe Law.

Having considered the Parties’ evidence and arguments, including the nature of the work performed during Mr. Wong’s tenure with Intervenor and after, the skill required, the relative contingent risk assumed, and the likelihood of success at the time of Mr. Wong’s departure, the Court is persuaded that the majority of Mr. Wong’s 45% allocation should be allocated to Intervenor. In the Court’s experience and judgment, 70% represents the reasonable value of the services rendered.

Thus, attorneys’ fees are awarded as follows: - $916,66.67 to Lazarski Law Practice, P.C. - $225,000 to Mr. Wong/Lyfe Law, LLP - $525,000 to Barkhordarian Law Firm, PC

Costs

Counsel attests to incurring a total of $28,577.22 in litigation costs, including $18,965.99 incurred by Lazarski Law Practice, P.C. and $12,276.32 incurred (and to be incurred) by Mr. Wong. (Lazarski Decl., ¶¶ 15-16, Exh. B; Wong Decl. ISO Fees Mot., ¶ 12.) Intervenor separately attests to incurring $9,437.33 in out-of-pocket costs on behalf of the Class. (Fees Opp., p. 13:10-28; Barkhordarian Dec., ¶¶ 12-13.) While both Mr. Lazarski and Intervenor claim costs associated with certified transcripts of Plaintiffs’ depositions, it is conceivable that both firms incurred these expenses. These costs total $40,679.64, well below the maximum allocation provided by the Agreement. The Court finds these costs reasonable and appropriate.

Thus, costs are awarded as follows: - $18,965.99 to Lazarski Law Practice, P.C. - $12,276.32 to Mr. Wong/Lyfe Law, LLP

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

- $9,437.33 to Barkhordarian Law Firm, PC

Settlement Administrator

CPT attests that its total fees and costs for services in connection with the administration of this settlement are $82,000. (Singh Decl., ¶ 20.) The Court finds these costs reasonable and appropriate.

Class Representative Service Payments

The Agreement provides for Class Representative service payments to each Class Representative of $20,000. (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.) Plaintiffs describe their efforts – including siting for a deposition, attending the mandatory settlement conference, and attending mediation – and estimate the amount of time they have spent assisting in the prosecution of this action. (O’Braza Decl. ISO Prelim. App., ¶¶ 4-9, 11 [80 hours]; Elias- Berg Decl. ISO Prelim. App., ¶¶ 4-9, 11 [70 hours]; Fichtner Decl. ISO Prelim. App., ¶¶ 4-9, 11 [70 hours].)

As the Court explained at preliminary approval, the requested service payments are considerably higher than those typically awarded by this Court for comparable time spent prosecuting the action. (6-5-25 Minute Order.) However, in light of the specific work performed, the Court reduces the service payments to $12,500 each. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the Administrator will retain the remainder in the NSA for distribution to the Class. (SA, ¶ 3.2.1.)

Disposition

In sum, and subject to the final fairness hearing and the Compliance Hearing set below, the Court tentatively concludes that the settlement is entitled to final approval. Provided that no objection is asserted by any Class Member at the hearing on this matter and the matters raised above are adequately addressed, the Court will sign the Proposed Judgment filed with Plaintiffs’ moving papers and the revised Proposed Order discussed below.

Any further Case Management Conferences and compliance hearings shall be handled by this Department. This Department shall monitor compliance with the settlement approval through and including the disbursement of any uncashed amount to the Unclaimed Property Fund.

The Court sets a Compliance Hearing for August 21, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. No later than August 14, 2026, Plaintiffs shall file (1) a supplemental declaration from the Administrator providing an update on the Class response; and (2) a revised Proposed

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

Order addressing both final approval and the fee award that, consistent with the Court’s findings above, includes the specific fee and cost awards, reduces Plaintiffs’ service awards, includes the list of individuals who requested exclusion from the Class, and incorporates the Distribution Compliance Hearing set below.

The Court sets a Distribution Compliance Hearing for June 25, 2027 at 10:30 a.m. At least 15 calendar days prior to the Compliance 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.

[1] If Counsel cannot adequately address the questions below regarding settlement administration, the Court expects the Administrator to appear.

[2] Mr. Wong also attaches a copy of the Agreement to his declaration in support of Plaintiffs’

motion for attorneys’ fees. (See Wong Decl. ISO Fees Mot., ¶ 4, Exh. A.) However, this copy does not include the stipulated amendment. [3] The “Effective Date” means the date on which the final approval order becomes final. (SA, ¶

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.) [4] Ms. Singh attests that “[s]ince CPT has not [sic] received forty-one (41) written requests for

exclusion from the settlement, CPT will report that a total of five thousand, two hundred and twenty-two (5,222) Participating Class Members will be issued an Individual Settlement Payment, which represents a 99.99% [sic] participation rate.” (Singh Decl., ¶ 16.) The Administrator and filing Counsel are expected to exercise care and diligence in preparing materials for the Court’s review. Typographical errors and incomplete information needlessly complicate the Court’s review. [5] The Motion for Fees and Costs itself acknowledges the significance of the work performed

during Mr. Wong’s employment with Intervenor when it highlights the following examples in supporting the lodestar: “conduct substantial discovery, oppose a Motion for Summary Judgment, address a Writ of Appeal, prepare a vigorously opposed Class Certification motion, [and] conduct a lengthy and complex exposure analysis based on time and pay records in excess of 3.4 million Excel lines of data and 5,000 pages of paper, prepare for a Mandatory Settlement Conference Each of the tasks included in Class Counsel’s calculation of hours was directedly

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00240446-CU-OE-GDS: Stacy OBraza vs. Dignity Health 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in Department 8B

related to the results achieved in this action and the amount of time spent was reasonable.” (Fees Mot., p. 11:17-24.) As Intervenor persuasively established, little changed between the Mandatory Settlement Conference and the Parties’ private mediation, where the settlement was ultimately reached. (Fees Opp., p. 11:10-28.) [6] Intervenor appears to overstate when it suggests that Mr. Wong’s work since leaving

Intervenor is little more than “wrap[ping] up a settlement whose foundational terms and data had already been established during [Intervenor’s] tenure.” (See Fees Sur-Reply, p. 7:17-19.)

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/divisions/civil/complex-civil-cases. 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.