DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
RG21104093·alameda·Civil·Class Action — Wage & Hour
Hearing todayThe Compliance Hearing Re: Final Distribution is vacated and dropped; distribution process is complete.

Eaton VS The Gap INC

Compliance Hearing Re: Final Distribution

Hearing date
Aug 24, 2026
Department
21
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$7,500,000$4,021,972.49$39,000

Parties

PlaintiffEaton
DefendantThe Gap INC

Ruling

RG21104093: Eaton VS The Gap INC 08/24/2026 Compliance Hearing Re: Final Distribution in Department 21

Tentative Ruling - 08/24/2026 S. Raj Chatterjee

The Compliance Hearing Re: Final Distribution scheduled for 08/24/2026 is vacated.

The hearing on final distribution is DROPPED. The Court ordered class counsel to direct the administrator to make a second distribution and that has been completed.

The settlement fund was $7,500,000. The net settlement fund was $4,021,972.49.

The class has approximately 7,455 members. Approximately 4,660 members of the class cashed their first and second checks, leaving a residual of $39,000. Given the amount of money at issue, the cost of a third distribution would outweigh the benefit. The court ORDERS that the distribution process is complete.

The court ORDERS that the claims administrator may distribute residual funds to the cy pres beneficiary.

The court ORDERS that the claims administrator may distribute the 10% of attorneys fees to 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