Yen v. Mosser

RG21100261: Yen VS Mosser 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 03/09/2026 and the Compliance Hearing Re: Final Distribution scheduled for 07/13/2026 are continued to 10/26/2026 at 02:30 PM in Department 21 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

The hearing on Final Distribution is CONTINUED.

BACKGROUND

The settlement concerns the claims in Yen v. Mosser, RG21-100261. The settlement does not concern the claims in Rosenberg v. Mosser, RG21100160; Boulakdem v. Mosser, RG21-100186; Rogashevsky v. Mosser. RG21-100506; or Annus v. Mosser, RG21100259.

Due to separate periods of liability based on various Defendants, Plaintiffs participated in two separate mediations and settlements. This Court granted final approval in the “Mosser” portion of the case on December 5, 2024. The “OAK9” settlement was approved on June 3, 2025.

“The settlement-fund proceeds, having been generated by the value of the class members' claims, belong solely to the class members.” (Klier v. Elf Atochem North America, Inc. (5th Cir. 2011) 658 F.3d 468, 474.) “Ultimately, “[t]he goal of any distribution method is to get as much of the available damages remedy to class members as possible and in as simple and expedient a manner as possible.”” (In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 327 F.R.D. 483, 496.) If there are unclaimed funds after an initial distribution to the class members, then the Court can order a second distribution to the class members who cashed their initial checks. (4 Newberg & Rubenstein on Class Actions (6th ed. 2022) §§ 12:28, 12:30.)

MOSSER SETTLEMENT

The information is in the Singh Declaration filed 6/26/26.

The settlement fund was $975,000. The net settlement fund was $600,000.

The class has 894 members. 418 members of the class cashed their checks and 476 did not cash their checks. There was a residual of $304,304.01. The Order of 3/9/26 directed plaintiffs to make a second distribution.

In the second distribution, 320 members of the class cashed their checks and 53 did not cash their checks. There is a residual of $30,379.

The Court ORDERS a third distribution. A further distribution of $28,000 (the uncashed funds, less admin costs) to 320 members of the class who cashed their checks would result in an RG21100261: Yen VS Mosser 07/13/2026 Compliance Hearing Re: Final Distribution in Department 21 average second distribution of $87 per person. This will result in a significant benefit to the class.

The court in its discretion finds that it is not required or appropriate to make further efforts to send checks to the members of the class who did not cash their checks in the previous distributions. If those persons did not receive or cash their previous checks, then it is reasonable to conclude that those persons will not receive or cash their further checks.

The court ORDERS that the check-cashing period for further distribution will be 60 days from the date the further distribution of settlement checks were issued.

The court ORDERS that the claims administrator may charge a reasonable amount for the further distribution, which amount will be taken from the funds remaining from the prior distributions.

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.

OAK9 SETTLEMENT

The information is in the Forst Declaration filed 6/26/26.

The settlement fund was $530,000. The net settlement fund was $326,833.

The class has 294 members. 179 members of the class cashed their checks and 115 did not cash their checks. There was a residual of $126,704. The Order of 3/9/26 directed plaintiffs to make a second distribution.

In the second distribution, 140 members of the class cashed their checks and 39 did not cash their checks. There is a residual of $23,386.51.

The Court ORDERS a third distribution. A further distribution of $21,000 (the uncashed funds, less admin costs) to 140 members of the class who cashed their checks would result in an average second distribution of $150 per person. This will result in a significant benefit to the class.

The court in its discretion finds that it is not required or appropriate to make further efforts to send checks to the members of the class who did not cash their checks in the previous distributions. If those persons did not receive or cash their previous checks, then it is reasonable to conclude that those persons will not receive or cash their further checks.

The court ORDERS that the check-cashing period for further distribution will be 60 days from the date the further distribution of settlement checks were issued.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21100261: Yen VS Mosser 07/13/2026 Compliance Hearing Re: Final Distribution in Department 21

The court ORDERS that the claims administrator may charge a reasonable amount for the further distribution, which amount will be taken from the funds remaining from the prior distributions.

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.