MENCHACA vs ABODE SERVICES
Compliance Hearing re: Final Distribution
Motion type
Monetary amounts referenced
Parties
Ruling
22CV009389: MENCHACA vs ABODE SERVICES 08/31/2026 Compliance Hearing re: Final Distribution in Department 21
Tentative Ruling - 08/26/2026 S. Raj Chatterjee
The Compliance Hearing re: Final Distribution scheduled for 08/31/2026 is continued to 01/11/2027 at 02:30 PM in Department 21 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.
The filing on 8/7/26 states: "7. Ultimately, eight hundred ninety-four (894) checks, totaling $604,250.25 were cashed. Five hundred ninety-six (596) checks, totaling $246,990.78, remain uncashed. ... Now that the original check-cashing deadline has passed, and once ordered by the Court, Phoenix will proceed with the redistribution of the uncashed settlement funds totaling $246,990.78 to the 894 Class Members who negotiated their original settlement checks. The redistributed checks will remain valid for 90 days, after which any uncashed checks will be voided."
The Court ORDERS class counsel to direct Phoenix to proceed with the redistribution as described.
The Court ORDERS class counsel to file a final accounting at least five court days before the continued hearing.
The Court ORDERS that funds not be distributed to the cy pres beneficiary until after Court approval of a final accounting.
The Court ORDERS that 10% of any fee award not be distributed to counsel until the completion of the distribution process and Court approval of a final accounting.
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 courts 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
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?”