DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
RG19029430·alameda·Civil·Class Action
Hearing about 2 months agoDROPPED

Chavolla VS OA Logistics Services

Compliance Hearing Re: Final Distribution

Hearing date
Jul 13, 2026
Department
21
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,054.71

Parties

PlaintiffChavolla
DefendantOA Logistics Services

Ruling

RG19029430: Chavolla VS OA Logistics Services 07/13/2026 Compliance Hearing Re: Final Distribution in Department 21

Tentative Ruling - 07/09/2026 S. Raj Chatterjee

The Compliance Hearing Re: Final Distribution scheduled for 07/13/2026 is vacated.

The hearing on final distribution is DROPPED. The Order of 9/9/25 directed a second distribution. Following the second distribution there is a residual of $1,054.71.

The Court finds that further efforts to distribute funds to class members would not be efficient.

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

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

The court ORDERS that at the time of the final accounting that counsel for plaintiff transmit a copy of this order and the final judgment and the final accounting to the Judicial Council. (CCP 384.5; Govt Code 68520.)

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