DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV025913·alameda·Civil·Class Action Settlement
Hearing 3 months agoThe Compliance Hearing is vacated; administrator authorized to distribute residual funds to cy pres beneficiary and holdback fees to class counsel.

NICOLETTE RHODES vs PATELCO CREDIT UNION

Compliance Hearing

Hearing date
Jun 1, 2026
Department
21
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$3,023.48

Parties

PlaintiffNICOLETTE RHODES
DefendantPATELCO CREDIT UNION

Ruling

23CV025913: NICOLETTE RHODES vs PATELCO CREDIT UNION 06/01/2026 Compliance Hearing in Department 21

Tentative Ruling - 06/01/2026 S. Raj Chatterjee

The Compliance Hearing scheduled for 06/01/2026 is vacated.

The compliance hearing is vacated.

The Declaration filed 5/22/26 states that (1) The check-cashing period for Settlement Class Members expires on July 2, 2026, and (2) as of 5/22/26 three (3) checks, totaling $3,023.48 remain uncashed.

The Court can determine on the current record that a second distribution will not be appropriate.

The Court ORDERS that at the conclusion of the check cashing period that the administrator may distribute the residual funds to the cy pres beneficiary and distribute the 10% holdback of fees to class counsel.

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