DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
22CV024427·alameda·Civil·Class Action
Hearing about 2 months agoThe Compliance Hearing is vacated; the claims administrator may distribute the remaining 10% of attorneys’ fees and distribute the residual to the cy pres beneficiary.

MARTINEZ FLORES vs APT MAINTENANCE, INC.

Compliance Hearing re: Final Distribution

Hearing date
Jul 6, 2026
Department
21
Prevailing
Moving Party
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,585.04

Parties

PlaintiffMARTINEZ FLORES
DefendantAPT MAINTENANCE, INC.

Ruling

22CV024427: MARTINEZ FLORES vs APT MAINTENANCE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 07/06/2026 Compliance Hearing re: Final Distribution in Department 21

Tentative Ruling - 07/02/2026 S. Raj Chatterjee

The Compliance Hearing re: Final Distribution scheduled for 07/06/2026 is vacated.

The Court ordered a second distribution. The filing on 6/22/26 states: "Following the expiration of the second-distribution check-cashing period, a total of $1,585.04 remains uncashed."

The distribution process is complete. The Court finds that the administrative cost of further distribution would outweigh the benefit.

The court ORDERS that the claims administrator may distribute the 10% of attorneys’ fees.

The court ORDERS that the claims administrator may distribute the residual to the cy pres beneficiary.

PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if uncontested by 04:00pm the day before your hearing. If you wish to contest the tentative ruling, then both notify opposing counsel directly and the court at the eCourt portal found on the court’s website: www.alameda.courts.ca.gov.

If you have contested the tentative ruling or your tentative ruling reads, “parties to appear,” please use the following link to access your hearing at the appropriate date and time: https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/department21. If no party has contested the tentative ruling, then no appearance is necessary.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share