DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV045852·alameda·Civil·Class Action — Wage & Hour
Hearing todayCONTINUED

Eaton v. The Gap, Inc., et al.

Compliance Hearing Re: Final Distribution

Hearing date
Aug 31, 2026
Department
21
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 31, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffEaton
DefendantThe Gap, Inc.

Ruling

23CV045852: EATON vs THE GAP, INC., et al. 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 07/20/2026 is continued to 08/31/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 21 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

The hearing on final distribution is CONTINUED. The Order of 1/15/26 directed class counsel to direct the administrator to make a second distribution. The filing on 5/22/26 states the Parties request that the compliance hearing currently set for July 20, 2026, be continued until August 24, 2026, or as soon thereafter as is convenient for the Court.

The court ORDERS that the claims administrator must not make any payment to the cy pres beneficiary until the Court approves the final distribution.

The court ORDERS that the claims administrator must continue to hold the 10% of attorneys fees until the Court approves the final distribution.

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