EATON vs THE GAP, INC., et al.
Compliance Hearing Re: Final Distribution
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
23CV045852: EATON vs THE GAP, INC., et al. 08/31/2026 Compliance Hearing Re: Final Distribution in Department 21
Tentative Ruling - 08/31/2026 S. Raj Chatterjee
The Compliance Hearing Re: Final Distribution scheduled for 07/20/2026 and the Compliance Hearing Re: Final Distribution scheduled for 08/31/2026 are continued to 09/28/2026 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. As of August 31, 2026, the court records do not reflect a statement final accounting.
The Court ORDERS that at least five court days before the compliance hearing on final distribution the plaintiff must file a statement regarding the status of the distribution including total funds distributed to class, total number and dollar value of checks cashed, and total number and dollar value of checks not cashed.
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 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?”