MYA BOYD VS MIDPEN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
COMPLIANCE HEARING
Motion type
Causes of action
Monetary amounts referenced
Parties
Attorneys
Ruling
May 12, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 4 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 2 22-CIV-03192 MYA BOYD VS MIDPEN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
MYA BOYD DOUGLAS HAN MIDPEN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION DAVID I. KORNBLUH
COMPLIANCE HEARING
TENTATIVE RULING:
On August 26, 2025, this court provided approval of the settlement in this Private Attorney’s General Act (PAGA) case (with a written order entered September 5, 2025) and the court set a compliance hearing for May 12, 2026.
On April 29, 2026, Connor Tevenan of Phoenix Settlement Administrators (Phoenix), the settlement administrator, filed a declaration setting forth the work that Phoenix performed to disburse the settlement funds, and to comply with its obligations under the settlement agreement and this court’s order. All disbursements have been made and the time for cashing the checks has passed. The declaration states that there are 238 checks, totaling $14,389.86 that remain uncashed. As previously ordered, the court orders Phoenix to remit the uncashed funds to the State Controller. Phoenix is ordered to file in this court a declaration within seven days of notice of entry of order confirming that the funds have been remitted to the State Controller. The declaration shall be filed, served, and emailed to Department 4. Once this declaration is filed, the case will be fully resolved and shall be closed upon the filing of Phoenix’s declaration confirming the remitting of the funds.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.
Cited authorities
Extracted by Gemini Flash 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?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.