Declaration in Support of Preliminary Approval in Class Action Against 8x8 for California Wage and Hour Laws
Post on 28-Jul-2015
684 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS SETTLEMENT-1-
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)2255 Calle ClaraLa Jolla, CA 92037Telephone: (858)551-1223Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP Walter Haines (State Bar #71705)65 Pine Ave, #312Long Beach, CA 90802Telephone: (562) 256-1047Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
NIKKI MEIERDIERCKS, an individual;KARIN FLAVETTA, an individual; FRANKTORRES, an individual; on behalf ofthemselves, and on behalf of all personssimilarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
8X8, INC.; and Does 1 to 10,
Defendants.
CASE No. 110cv162413 (Class Action)
DECLARATION OF KYLE R.NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OFMOTION FOR PRELIMINARYAPPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
Date: April 29, 2011Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 1Judge: Hon. James P. Kleinberg
[Complaint Filed: January 27, 2010]
E-FILEDApr 8, 2011 8:00 AM
David H. YamasakiChief Executive Officer/Clerk
Superior Court of CA, County of Santa ClaraCase #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
By D. Kontorovsky, Deputy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 1 Capitalized terms have the same meaning as contained in the Agreement.
DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OFCLASS SETTLEMENT
-2-
I, KYLE R. NORDREHAUG, declare as follows:
1. I am a partner in the law firm of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik counsel of
record for the Plaintiffs and the putative Class in this matter. As such, I am fully familiar with the
facts, pleadings and history of this matter. The following facts are within my own personal
knowledge, and if called as a witness, I could testify competently to the matters stated herein.
2. This declaration is being submitted in support of plaintiff’s Motion For an Order
(1) Preliminarily Approving Settlement of Plaintiffs’ Claims; (2) Scheduling Final Fairness
Hearing; and, (3) Directing that Notice be sent to Class Members. Assuming the Court signs the
Preliminary Approval Order on April 29, 2011, Plaintiffs suggest that the Final Fairness Hearing be
set for a date that is 130 days out, which would mean September 9, 2011 or as soon thereafter as the
Court is available. Lodged herewith as Exhibit 1 is a copy of the Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement (“Agreement”) along with exhibits thereto.1
Fairness of Settlement
3. Plaintiffs have agreed to a class Settlement with Defendant 8x8, Inc. (“Defendant”).
As consideration for this Settlement, the Settlement Total that Defendant will pay under this
Settlement is a total of Six Hundred Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($625,000). This payment will
settle all issues pending in the litigation between the Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and the Defendant,
on the other hand, including but not limited to, all payments to the Settlement Class, attorney’s fees,
litigation expenses, Service Payments to the Plaintiffs, the PAGA payment, and the expenses of the
Claims Administrator. All of the Settlement Total will be disbursed pursuant to this Agreement,
and no funds will revert to Defendant.
4. The relief provided in the settlement will benefit all members of the Settlement Class
equally. The settlement does not grant preferential treatment to Plaintiffs or segments of the
Settlement Class in any way. All Settlement Class Members will receive the same opportunity to
participate in and receive payment. Payments to the Settlement Class are all determined under the
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OFCLASS SETTLEMENT
-3-
same methodology and are based upon each employees workweeks during the Class Period. The
Settlement Share for each Claimant will be calculated by (a) dividing the Net Settlement Total by
the total number of work weeks in a covered position during the Class Period for all Class Members
and (b) multiplying the result by each individual Claimant’s work weeks in a covered position
during the Class Period. (Agreement at §III(C)(1).)
5. Settlement negotiations took place before David Rotman, one of the preeminent
mediators of wage and hour class actions in California. In preparation for the mediation, Defendant
provided Class Counsel with all of the necessary data, including time records and payroll
information for the members of the Class. Plaintiffs analyzed the data with the assistant of their
damages expert, Desmond, Marcello & Amster ("DM&A"), prepared damage estimates, and
submitted a mediation brief to Mr. Rotman. The all-day mediation session held on November 9,
2010 was contentious and arm's length, and ultimately resulted in a mediator's settlement proposal
which the parties accepted. Based on Defendant’s data and their own independent investigation
and evaluation, Class Counsel is of the opinion that the settlement with Defendant for the
consideration and on the terms set forth in the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and is in
the best interest of the class in light of all known facts and circumstances, including the risk of
significant delay, defenses asserted by Defendant, the possibility that little or no monetary relief
could be awarded at trial, and numerous potential appellate issues.
6. In October 2010, the damage estimates to compensate for the amount due for the
unpaid overtime was calculated by Desmond, Marcello & Amster ("DM&A"), Plaintiffs' damage
expert, based upon the time record and payroll information obtained from Defendant. For the
employees in the Settlement Class whose claims are at issue here, the compensation owed to the
members of the class for unpaid overtime equaled $947,328. Once estimates for meal break
compensation, wage statement penalties, waiting time penalties and other statutory penalties are
included, the total maximum damage estimates was $1.56 million. The settlement of $625,000.00
represents at least 65% of the total unpaid overtime, and 40% of the maximum value of all claims
and penalties, assuming these amounts could be proven at trial. Clearly the goal of this litigation to
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OFCLASS SETTLEMENT
-4-
obtain payment for the unpaid vacation has been met. The Settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate, and should be preliminarily approved. Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this
Court grant preliminary approval of the Stipulation for Settlement.
Procedural History of the Litigation
7. On January 27, 2010, plaintiffs Nikki Meierdiercks, Karin Flavetta, and Frank Torres
filed a Complaint against 8x8, Inc. in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara. The
Complaint alleged the following causes of action: Unfair Competition (Bus. & Prof. Code §§
17200, et seq.); Failure to Pay Overtime Wages (Labor Code §§ 510, et seq.); Failure to Provide
Meal and Rest Periods (Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512); Failure to Indemnify Business Expenses
(Labor Code § 2802); and Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements (Labor Code § 226).
The Complaint was filed as a class action. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs and other
employees were misclassified as “exempt” employees, and as a result, these employees failed to
receive overtime compensation, off-duty meal periods and other benefits. Plaintiffs sought to certify
a class composed of themselves and similarly situated individuals and to recover from Defendant
wages, interest, penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
8. On March 2, 2010, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint. In the Answer,
Defendant denied the allegations set forth in the Complaint and denied that Plaintiffs suffered any
damages as a result of its conduct. Defendant contended that Plaintiffs and Defendant’s other
similarly situated employees were properly classified as exempt from overtime.
9. On April 29, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint which, inter alia, (I)
revised certain of the allegations while retaining the material allegations of their claims, and (II)
added a claim for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (Cal. Labor
Code § 2698, et seq.) based upon the same material allegations. On May 21, 2010, Defendant filed
an Answer to the First Amended Complaint.
10. Defendant answered each of Plaintiffs’ Complaints, denying the material allegations.
Specifically, Defendant contended (and continues to contend) that the Action could not properly be
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OFCLASS SETTLEMENT
-5-
maintained as a class action; that members of the class were properly classified as exempt from
state overtime requirements; that Defendant did not fail to pay to any members of the class who are
former employees any wages allegedly due at the time of their termination; that Defendant provided
accurate, itemized wage statements to members of the class; that Defendant provided meal and rest
periods to the members of the class; that Defendant did not fail to reimburse employees for business
expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties; that Defendant did not violate
California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq; and that Defendant is not liable for
any of the penalties claimed or that could be claimed in the Complaints.
11. On June 7, 8 and 9, 2010, the Defendant took the deposition of each of the named
Plaintiffs. On September 15, 2010, Plaintiffs deposed Defendant’s corporate designee Daniel
Weirich, and on September 16, 2010, Plaintiffs deposed Defendant’s second corporate designee
Marc Cook. Plaintiffs also served and Defendant responded to three sets of Special Interrogatories,
three sets of Requests for Admissions, three sets of Requests for Production, and three sets of Form
Interrogatories. Through the Claims Administrator, Plaintiffs distributed the Belaire Notice to the
putative class and thereafter received the contact information for the employees who did not opt
out. Plaintiffs conducted interviews of putative class members. Plaintiffs also responded to
Defendant’s written discovery.
12. On June 25, 2010, the Court conducted a case management conference in the Action.
On September 17, 2010, the Court conducted a continued case management conference in the
Action, and also held an informal conference to address a discovery dispute that was briefed by
both parties.
13. Defendant produced the computer system information for each named Plaintiff in
April 2010 which showed the dates and time of work performed by the Sales Representatives. and,
in anticipation of mediation, Defendant also produced this information for all 166 members of the
putative class along with the necessary payroll data for all 166 members of the putative class.
14. On November 9, 2010, the parties engaged in mediation before David Rotman, a
preeminent mediator of wage and hour class actions. At the mediation, the parties, represented by
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OFCLASS SETTLEMENT
-6-
its respective counsel, recognized the substantial risk of an adverse result in the Action and
successfully negotiated a class action settlement of this action. The parties executed a Memorandum
of Understanding setting forth the basic terms of the Settlement.
15. Class Counsel has conducted a thorough investigation into the facts of the class
action. Class Counsel has diligently evaluated the Class Members' claims against Defendant. Prior
to the Parties executing a “Memorandum of Understanding,” Class Counsel obtained all necessary
information concerning Defendant’s employment policies and practices and Class Member data,
including relevant salary and time record information for the employees at issue. Based on the
foregoing data and their own independent investigation and evaluation, Class Counsel believes that
the settlement with Defendant for the consideration and on the terms set forth in this Agreement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and is in the best interest of the Class in light of all known facts and
circumstances, including the risk of significant delay, defenses asserted by Defendant, and
numerous potential appellate issues.
Plan of Allocation
16. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Settlement Total that
Defendant will pay under this Settlement is a total of Six Hundred Twenty-five Thousand Dollars
($625,000). This amount constitutes Defendant’s entire financial obligation pursuant to this
Agreement (provided that if there is insufficient funds in the residual account to pay Defendant’s
payroll tax burden, Defendant shall pay the amount of the payroll tax burden which is not covered
by the residual account). All of the Settlement Total will be disbursed pursuant to this Agreement,
and no funds will revert to Defendant. (Agreement at §III(A).) The “Net Settlement Total” means
the net amount of the Settlement Total available for payment of claims to class members after
deducting therefrom the expenses charged for claims administration, attorneys’ fees, reimbursement
of attorneys’ expenses, the LWDA share of the PAGA payment and the service awards.
(Agreement at §I(V).)
17. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the Claims Administrator will
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OFCLASS SETTLEMENT
-7-
make the following payments out of the Settlement Total as follows: (1) Settlement Shares to the
Claimants; (2) the reasonable fees and expenses of the Claims Administrator in an amount not to
exceed $15,000; (3) the payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency in
the amount of $3,750; (4) an award of not more than $156,250 (25% of the Settlement Total) to
Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees; (5) an amount not more than $25,000 to Class Counsel as
reimbursement for litigation expenses incurred; and, (6) an award of not more than $5,000 to each
Plaintiff as his or her Class Representative Service Payment. (Agreement at §III(B)-(C).) All
Unclaimed Settlement Shares or unclaimed funds allocated to Non-Participating Class Members
shall be allocated first to payment of the Defendant’s share of payroll taxes on those Wage Portions
of the Net Settlement Total, and thereafter, any remaining funds in the Net Settlement Total shall be
distributed to Claimants on a pro rata basis relative to their Settlement Shares. (Agreement at
§III(C)(5).) If there are not sufficient funds in the residual account to pay Defendant’s payroll tax
burden, Defendant shall pay the amount of the payroll tax burden which is not covered by the
residual account. (Agreement at §III(A).)
18. Under the Settlement, the Claims Administrator will pay a Settlement Share from the
Net Settlement Total to each Claimant who timely and properly submits a Claim Form. The
Settlement Share for each Claimant will be calculated by (a) dividing the Net Settlement Total by
the total number of work weeks in a covered position during the Class Period for all Class Members
and (b) multiplying the result by each individual Claimant’s work weeks in a covered position
during the Class Period. (Agreement at §III(C)(1).) One-half (50 %) of each Settlement Share shall
be allocated to wages, and one-half (50%) of each Settlement Share shall be allocated to interest
and penalties allegedly due to employees.
19. Non-Participating Class Members will receive no Settlement Share, and their
election not to participate will reduce neither the Settlement Total nor the Net Settlement Total.
Their respective Settlement Shares will be retained in the Net Settlement Total for distribution.
(Agreement at §III(C)(3).) If a Participating Class Member does not submit a valid and timely
Claim Form and therefore does not qualify as a Claimant, the Settlement Share that would have
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OFCLASS SETTLEMENT
-8-
been paid to him or her if he or she had qualified as a Claimant (the “Unclaimed Settlement Share”)
will be retained in the Net Settlement Total for distribution (Agreement at §III(C)(4).) All
Unclaimed Settlement Shares or unclaimed funds allocated to Non-Participating Class Members
shall be allocated first to payment of the Defendant’s share of payroll taxes on those Wage Portions
of the Net Settlement Total, and thereafter, any remaining funds in the Net Settlement Total shall be
distributed to Claimants on a pro rata basis relative to their Settlement Shares. (Agreement at
§III(C)(5).)
Risks of Continued Litigation
20. Here, a number of defenses asserted by Defendant presented threats to the claims of
Plaintiffs and the other Class Members. Defendant likely would assert that Defendant’s
employment practices complied with all applicable Labor laws. For example, Defendant contended
that Class Members were barred from recovery by the "administrative exemption" because they
perform work consisting of representing the employer with the public, negotiating on behalf of the
company, advising and consulting with clients, and engage in sales promotion. See, e.g., Hogan v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 361 F.3d 621, 627 (11th Cir. Fla. 2004) (Court determined that for insurance
salespersons, promoting sales and advising customers regarding sales were administrative rather
than production tasks). Defendant also contended that many of the employees were subject to the
commissioned salesperson exemption. Defendant argued that, irrespective of the exemption
arguments, that the Defendant’s potential overtime liability was minimal because the employees
only worked during regular business hours. As to the expense reimbursement claim, Defendant
contended that none of the claimed expenses, which entirely consisted of home internet connection
costs, were reasonably incurred since employees only worked during regular business hours or were
actually incurred for work. As to the meal and rest break claims, Defendant maintained written
policies permitting and encouraging employees to take meal and rest periods, and therefore could
argue that Defendant authorized, permitted and provided meal periods and rest breaks to its Sales
Representatives.
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OFCLASS SETTLEMENT
-9-
21. Defendant could also contest class certification by arguing that the question of
whether a particular employee had unpaid overtime requires an individual case by case analysis,
and the proof of injury would require individualized evidence which would preclude class
certification. See e.g. Ali v. U.S.A. Cab, Ltd., 176 Cal. App. 4th 1333, 1350 (2009). There was a
significant risk that, if the Actions were not settled, Plaintiffs would be unable to obtain class
certification and thereby not recover on behalf of any employees other than themselves. In Dunbar
v. Albertson's, Inc., 141 Cal. App. 4th 1422, 1431-32 (2006), the California Court of Appeal
affirmed an order denying class certification to a class of employees who claimed that they were
denied overtime pay because whether the executive exemption applied would have had to have been
individually determined for each class member which meant that common issues did not
predominate. Similarly, here Defendant would have certainly argued in opposing class certification
that individual issues predominated because the applicability of the administrative exemption would
have to be separately determined for each Class Member based on their individual experience.
While other cases have approved class certification in overtime wage claims, class certification in
this action would have been hotly disputed and was by no means a foregone conclusion.
Accordingly, class-wide liability was far from certain.
22. The stage of the proceedings at which this settlement was reached also militates in
favor of preliminary approval and ultimately, final approval of the settlement. Class Counsel has
conducted a thorough investigation into the facts of the class action. Class Counsel began
investigating the Class Members’ claims before this action was filed. Class Counsel conducted
significant discovery, including document requests including three (3) sets of Requests for
Production, three (3) sets of Requests for Admissions, three (3) sets of Special Interrogatories, and
three (3) sets of Form Interrogatories. Class Counsel conducted two (2) depositions of the
corporate designated witnesses, and all of the Plaintiffs were deposed. Class Counsel obtained
production of all relevant business and payroll records produced through both formal and informal
discovery. Class Counsel engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the relevant documents
and data with the assistance of experts. Accordingly, the agreement to settle did not occur until
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OFCLASS SETTLEMENT
-10-
Class Counsel possessed sufficient information to make an informed judgment regarding the
likelihood of success on the merits and the results that could be obtained through further litigation.
23. Based on the foregoing data and their own independent investigation and evaluation,
Class Counsel is of the opinion that the settlement with Defendant for the consideration and on the
terms set forth in the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and is in the best interest of the
class in light of all known facts and circumstances, including the risk of significant delay, defenses
asserted by Defendant, and numerous potential appellate issues. There can be no doubt that Class
Counsel possessed sufficient information to make an informed judgment regarding the likelihood of
success on the merits and the results that could be obtained through further litigation.
24. There is no need for continued litigation simply to reaffirm what is already known
by the negotiating parties. The extensive due diligence performed by Class Counsel has not created
any doubt concerning the accuracy of the information supplied by Defendant. Given the
complexities of this case, potential offsets, along with the uncertainties of proof and appeal, the
proposed settlement in Plaintiffs’ and Class Counsel’s view is well within the range of possible
approval and has no obvious deficiencies.
Class Certification
25. The proposed Settlement Class meet all of the requirements for class certification
under California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 as demonstrated below, and therefore, the Court
may appropriately approve the Class as defined in the Agreement. (Agreement at §III(E).) This
Court should conditionally certify a settlement class for settlement purposes only that consists of
“all persons who worked in California for 8x8, Inc. for one or more weeks between January 27,
2006 and June 30, 2010 as Sales Representatives, Account Managers and/or Account Executives
and who were classified as “exempt” from overtime.” (Agreement at §I(F).)
a. Numerosity - Here, the Settlement Class is composed of 166 current and
former employees, which is sufficiently numerous.
b. Commonality - Here, common questions of law and fact, as alleged by the
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OFCLASS SETTLEMENT
-11-
Plaintiffs, are present, specifically the question of whether the sales employees employed by
Defendant were "exempt" from overtime under California law. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant
had engaged in a uniform course of conduct with respect to the Settlement Class and the only
question is whether Defendant's conduct supports a meritorious claim for exemption
misclassification. Such suits challenging the legality of a standardized course of conduct are
generally appropriate for resolution by means of a class action.
c. Typicality - The Plaintiffs, like every other member of the Class, were
employed by Defendant and classified as "exempt" by Defendant. The Plaintiffs performed the
same type of sales and consulting work as the other members of the Class. The Plaintiffs, like every
other member of the Class, claim unpaid overtime wages for work performed in the same job
classification. Thus, the claims of both the Plaintiffs and the Members of the Class arise from the
same course of conduct by the Defendant, involve the same work performed, and are based on the
same legal theories.
d. Adequacy - Plaintiffs are well aware of their duties as the representatives of
the class and actively participated in the prosecution of this case to date. They effectively
communicated with counsel, providing documents to counsel and participated extensively in
discovery, investigation and negotiations in the Action. Plaintiff also retained competent counsel
who have extensive experience in employment class actions. (See below).
e. Predominance - Here, common questions of law and fact, as alleged by the
Plaintiffs, are present, specifically the question of whether the sales employees employed by
Defendant were “exempt” from overtime under California law. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant
had engaged in a uniform course of conduct with respect to the Settlement Class and the only
question is whether Defendant’s conduct supports a meritorious claim for exemption
misclassification. Such suits challenging the legality of a standardized course of conduct are
generally appropriate for resolution by means of a class action.
26. Class Counsel is experienced in prosecuting class action lawsuits and can
competently represent the Class. For example, other lawyers at my firm and I have extensive class
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OFCLASS SETTLEMENT
-12-
litigation experience. We have handled a number of class actions and complex commercial cases
and have acted both as counsel and as lead and co-lead counsel in a variety of these matters. We
have successfully prosecuted and obtained significant recoveries in numerous class action lawsuits
and other lawsuits involving complex issues of law and fact, including many wage and hour class
actions. Class Counsel has been involved as class counsel in over two hundred (200) class action
matters. A variety of Courts in California have approved my firm as adequate class counsel. A true
and correct copy of the resume of my firm is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct. Executed this 7th day of April, 2011, at La Jolla, California.
By: /s/ Kyle R. Nordrehaug
Kyle R. Nordrehaug
K:\D\NBB\Meierdiercks v 8x8\Preliminary Approval\p-Decl - KRN.wpd
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
DECLARATION OF KYLE NORDREHAUG
EXHIBIT #1
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
-1- CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
[NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION]
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 1 -
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK Norman B. Blumenthal # 068687 Kyle R. Nordrehaug # 205975 Aparajit Bhowmik # 248066 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP Walter Haines # 71075 65 Pine Avenue, #312 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
NIKKI MEIERDIERCKS, an individual; KARIN FLAVETTA, an individual; FRANK TORRES, an individual; on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. 8X8, INC.; and Does 1 to 10, Defendants.
))))))))))))))
No. 110cv162413
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING Dept.: 1 Judge: Hon. James Kleinberg
NOTICE TO CURRENT AND FORMER SALES REPRESENTATIVES,
ACCOUNT MANAGERS AND ACCOUNT EXECUTIVES WHO WORKED FOR 8X8,
INC. IN CALIFORNIA:
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IT RELATES TO A PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LITIGATION. IF YOU ARE OR WERE
EMPLOYED BY 8X8 IN CALIFORNIA AS A SALES REPRESENTATIVE, ACCOUNT
MANAGER AND/OR ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE FOR ONE OR MORE WEEKS
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 2 -
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING
BETWEEN JANUARY 27, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2010 AND WERE CLASSIFIED
AS EXEMPT FROM OVERTIME, THIS NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT
INFORMATION AS TO YOUR RIGHT TO RECEIVE PAYMENT, TO ELECT TO BE
EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, OR TO OBJECT TO THE
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
Pursuant to the Order of the Superior Court of the State of California for Santa Clara
County entered [________, 2011], YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: A
proposed class settlement has been reached between the parties in the above-captioned
action pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for Santa Clara County, and
preliminarily approved by the Court, for certain current and former California employees of
8X8, Inc. (referred to as “8X8”) as described in Section I below. You have received this
notice because 8X8’s records indicate that you are one of the individuals who fall within
the Settlement Class.
I. WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS?
The Settlement Class consists of all persons who worked in California for 8x8, Inc.
for one or more weeks between January 27, 2006 and June 30, 2010 as Sales
Representatives, Account Managers and/or Account Executives and who were classified as
“exempt” from overtime.
II. WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?
This settlement resolves a lawsuit filed by former employees of 8X8, Nikki
Meierdiercks, Karin Flavetta, and Frank Torres (“Plaintiffs”). Nikki Meierdiercks, Karin
Flavetta, and Frank Torres are referred to as “Class Representatives” or “Plaintiffs.” The
Class Representatives alleges that 8X8 improperly classified Sales Representatives,
Account Managers and Account Executives as “exempt” from overtime compensation and
failed to pay these employees all wages due them by 8X8. On behalf of themselves and the
other Settlement Class Members, the Plaintiffs sought payment for alleged unpaid overtime,
missed meal and rest period payments, failure to pay wages due at time of termination,
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3 -
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING
failure to provide business expense reimbursement, failure to furnish timely and accurate
wage statements and related statutory and civil penalties.
8X8 denies the claims of the Class Representative and contends, among other
things, that these employees were properly classified as exempt under California law, and
that Plaintiffs and the class they seeks to represent were paid all wages due and were
provided with all legally required compensation and reimbursements.
Since this action was filed, there has been ongoing investigation, significant
discovery, and information exchanged through informal discovery. Furthermore, the
Parties participated in extensive settlement discussions, including a mediation conference
before a neutral and widely respected mediator. As a result of this mediation and arm’s-
length negotiations, the Parties reached a proposed settlement on November 9, 2010.
The Parties have entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Settlement
Agreement”), which was preliminarily approved by the Court. The Class Representatives
and Settlement Class Counsel support this settlement. Among the reasons for their support
are the complete defenses to liability potentially available to 8X8, the inherent risk of trial
on the merits, and the delays associated with litigation.
If you are a member of the Class as defined in Section I above, you may participate
in the settlement. This settlement includes (a) payment to the members of the Settlement
Class; (b) entry of a judgment and final order approving the settlement; and (c) discharge
and complete release of all Parties and their respective counsel from liability for any and all
of the Released Claims. This Judgment and Final Order shall have a res judicata effect and
bar the Plaintiffs and each Settlement Class Member who has not been excluded from the
Settlement Class from bringing any action asserting any claims released in the Class Action
Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”).
III. WHO ARE THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING THE PARTIES?
Counsel for the Class (“Settlement Class Counsel”) is:
Norman B. Blumenthal Kyle R. Nordrehaug Aparajit Bhowmik Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 4 -
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING
2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com Email: norm@bamlawlj.com
Counsel for 8X8, Inc. (“Defense Counsel”) is: Laura E. Innes Jamie Rudman Simpson, Garrity, Innes & Jacuzzi 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 950 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Telephone: (650) 615-4860 Fax: (650) 615-4861
Copies of any documents filed with the Court in this litigation should be sent to the
above-listed counsel.
IV. WHO IS THE SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR
The Settlement Administrator is Gilardi & Co., PO Box ____, San Rafael, CA
94______, Telephone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
V. WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
The settlement preliminarily approved by the Court provides for the terms
summarized below. A complete copy of the Settlement Agreement may be examined
during regular office hours in the office of the Clerk of the Court.
A. Settlement Total.
The total and all inclusive Settlement Total shall be a maximum of Six Hundred
Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($625,000) (the “Settlement Total”). All settlement
amounts to be paid under this Agreement shall be paid out of this Settlement Total, and the
cumulative amount of all such settlement amounts shall not exceed the Settlement Total.
Such settlement amounts shall include all amounts to be paid to Plaintiffs and Settlement
Class Members; all amounts to be paid to as Class Counsel Fees Payment and Class
Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment; all amounts to be paid as a Service Payment to the
Plaintiffs; all amounts to be paid as the fees and costs of the Claims Administrator; the
payment to the California Labor Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) for its
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 5 -
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING
portion of the amount paid to settle alleged claims for Private Attorney General Act
(“PAGA”) penalties, and any other Settlement Amounts to be paid according to the
Settlement Agreement. All of these payments are subject to the final approval of the Court.
B. Claims Administration Costs.
All costs of administering the Settlement (“Claims Administration Costs”) shall also
be paid from the Qualified Settlement Fund. These costs shall not exceed $15,000.
C. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
Settlement Class Counsel will be paid up to 25% of the Settlement Total, which
equals approximately $156,250 for Class Counsel Fees Payment and up to $25,000 for
Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment.
D. Service Payments to Plaintiffs.
Subject to Court approval, Plaintiffs shall receive a Service Payment of $5,000 each
in recognition of the services they rendered in obtaining the settlement for the benefit of the
Settlement Class, as described herein, and the financial risks undertaken by the Plaintiffs in
pursuing this matter on behalf of the Settlement Class.
E. Payment to the LWDA.
The Parties agree to allocate $5,000.00 of the Settlement Total, as penalties
authorized by PAGA. Seventy-five percent (75%) of this amount, which is $3,750, will be
paid to the LWDA and twenty-five percent (25%) of this amount will be distributed to
Settlement Class Members in accordance with the Settlement.
F. Settlement Shares Payable to Class Members.
Settlement Class Members shall be paid their Settlement Shares from the Qualified
Settlement Fund after deduction of (1) Claims Administration Costs; (2) Counsel Fees
Payment; (3) Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment; (4) the Service Payments to the
Class Representatives; and, (5) amounts paid to the LWDA for PAGA penalties. The
amount left after these deductions from which to pay Settlement Class Members is
estimated to be approximately $410,000 (“the Net Settlement Total”).
The Settlement Share for each Claimant will be calculated by (a) dividing the Net
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 6 -
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING
Settlement Total by the total number of work weeks in a covered position during the Class
Period for all Class Members and (b) multiplying the result by each individual Claimant’s
work weeks in a covered position during the Class Period.
G. Tax Treatment of Individual Settlement Amounts
The Settlement Payments paid each Settlement Class Member will be allocated
between wages, interest, penalties and the individual’s payment for alleged civil (PAGA)
penalties. One-half (50 %) of each Settlement Share shall be allocated to wages (the
“Wage Portion”). Accordingly, the Wage Portion is subject to wage withholdings, and
shall be reported on IRS Form W-2. One-half (50%) of each Settlement Share shall be
allocated to interest and penalties allegedly due to employees (the “Non-Wage Portion”).
Accordingly, the Non-Wage Portion shall not be subject to wage withholdings, and shall be
reported on IRS Form 1099.
VI. WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS AS A CLASS MEMBER?
A. How do I receive a payment from the Settlement?
If you want to participate in the Settlement and receive money under the Settlement, you must sign
and date the enclosed Claim Form and mail the completed Claim Form postmarked by [60 days
from mailing] to the Claims Administrator at the following address:
8X8 Overtime Settlement c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box ____ Corte Madera, CA 94976-1110 Telephone: (866) ___________
A copy of your Claim Form is enclosed. (If you need an extra copy, contact the Settlement
Administrator at the address or telephone number above). If any information provided on the Claim
Form is incorrect, please make corrections. For example, if your address is incorrect, please
indicate your correct address. Also, please provide your telephone number and any other requested
information if it is not already filled in. If you wish to have confirmation that the Settlement
Administrator has received your Claim Form, please send your Claim Form to the Settlement
Administrator by certified U.S. Mail with a return-receipt request.
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 7 -
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING
B. What if I do nothing?
If you do nothing -- that is if you do not mail a timely Claim Form or timely opt out
from the Class in the manner described below – you will not be entitled to a share of the
Settlement. However, you will be bound by the terms of the Settlement, including the
Release.
C. How do I opt out from the settlement?
If you do not wish to participate in the settlement, you may exclude yourself (“opt
out”) by completing the Election Not to Participate in Settlement that is enclosed. The
Election Not to Participate in Settlement form must be completed, signed, dated, and
returned to the Claims Administrator as follows:
8X8 Overtime Settlement Gilardi & Co. PO Box _____________ San Rafael, CA 94_____ The Election Not to Participate in Settlement form must be mailed via first class
mail and postmarked no later than _______, 2011 [insert date 45 days from mailing of
notice].
Any person who files a complete and timely Election Not to Participate in
Settlement form shall, upon receipt, no longer be a member of the Settlement Class, shall be
barred from participating in any portion of the settlement, and shall receive no benefits
from the settlement. Any such person, at his/her own expense, may pursue any claims
he/she may have against 8X8. However, there are deadlines to pursuing such claims known
as statutes of limitation. Please consult an attorney of your choice to ensure you are not
forever barred from pursuing your individual claim if you decide to opt out of the
settlement.
D. How do I object to the settlement?
You may object to the terms of the settlement before final approval. If you choose
to object to the settlement, you may represent yourself or hire your own attorney. You must
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 8 -
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING
file a written objection and notice of intention to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing
described below in Section VII. You must file these documents, along with any brief,
exhibits, and/or other material that you wish the Court to consider, with the Clerk of the
Court, Santa Clara County Superior Court, 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113. In
addition, you must send copies to the Settlement Class Counsel and Defense Counsel
indentified in Section III above.
Any written objections should state each specific reason for your objection and any
legal support for each objection. Your objection must also state your full name, address,
and the dates of your employment by 8X8. To be valid and effective, any objections to the
proposed settlement must be filed with the Clerk of the Court and served upon each of the
above-listed attorneys no later than ______, 2011 [insert date 45 days from mailing of
notice].
If you object to the Settlement, you will remain a member of the Class, and if the
Court approves the Settlement, you will be bound by the terms of the Settlement in the
same way as Class Members who do not object, unless you have opted out of the
Settlement in the manner described above, and if you have timely submitted a valid Claim
Form, you will receive your Settlement Share despite your objection to the Settlement. .
VII. RELEASE OF CLAIMS.
1. In consideration of the monetary sum provided by Defendant and upon final
approval of this Agreement by the Court, the Settlement Class and each of the Class
Members hereby waive, fully release and forever discharge the Releasees from any and all
claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, damages, action or causes of action of any
kind, whether known or unknown, which have been or could have been asserted against
Defendant and/or the Releasees arising out of or related to all claims for wages, overtime
pay, pay for all time allegedly worked but not compensated, commissions, business
expenses and all other claims of any kind for wages, penalties, interests, costs and
attorneys’ fees arising from the alleged violation of any provision of common law,
California law and/or Federal law which were or could have been raised as part of the
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 9 -
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING
Named Plaintiffs’ claims, including but not limited to claims under California Labor Code
Sections 201, 202, 204, 206.5, 210, 218, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 551, 552, 558, 1182, 1194,
1197, 1198, 2698, 2699, 2699.5, 2802 and Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et
seq. except as to such rights or claims as may be created by this Agreement occurring
during the Class Period. Class Period is the period of time from January 27, 2006 through
June 30, 2010. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to waive any right that is not
subject to waiver by private agreement, including without limitation any claims arising
under state unemployment insurance or workers’ compensation laws. This settlement and
release shall be binding on all Class Members and Parties, whether or not they submit a
claim form or receive a payment pursuant to this Settlement unless they opt out of the
Settlement. The effect of the Settlement and the Release extends to 8X8 and its officers,
parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and others, as more fully
described in the Settlement Agreement (“Releasees”)
You will also waive all rights and benefits afforded by California Civil Code section
1542. Section 1542 provides:
“A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.”
VIII. FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING.
The Santa Clara County Superior Court will hold a hearing in Department 1, located
at 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, on ___________, 2011, at [TIME], to
determine whether the settlement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate (“Final Fairness Hearing”). The Court also will be asked to approve Settlement
Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees costs and the Service Payments to be paid to the
Plaintiffs. Settlement Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of
expenses will be on file with the Court no later than the date the Notice is mailed to the
Class, and the motion will be scheduled to be heard by the Court at the Final Fairness
Hearing, and will be available for review after that date. The hearing may be continued
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 10 -
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING
without further notice to the Settlement Class. It is not necessary for you to appear at this
hearing unless you object to the proposed settlement and you have timely filed an objection
with the Court.
IX. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
The above is a summary of the basic terms of the settlement. For the precise terms
and conditions of the settlement, you should consult the complete Settlement Agreement,
which is on file with the Clerk of the Court. The pleadings and other records in this
Litigation, including the Settlement Agreement, may be examined at any time during
regular business hours at the Office of the Clerk of the Orange Superior Court, 751 West
Santa Ana Boulevard, Santa Ana, California 92701. Please put your social security number
on all correspondence to Settlement Class Counsel and to the Claims Administrator. If you
move after receiving this notice, or if it was incorrectly addressed, please provide your
correct address to the Settlement Administrator, Gilardi & Co.
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT FOR INFORMATION
REGARDING THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS. ALL QUESTIONS
REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE CLAIMS
ADMINISTRATOR.
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
-2- CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT B
[CLAIM FORM]
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
CLAIM FORM
THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE POST MARKED NO LATER THAN _______________, 2011. YOU MUST SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM TO BE PAID. I. CLAIMANT IDENTIFICATION:
Name (Print): [PRE-PRINTED] Street Address: [PRE-PRINTED] City, State, Zip Code: [PRE-PRINTED] Residence Telephone Number: [PRE-PRINTED] Social Security Number: [PRE-PRINTED] (The Internal Revenue Service requires this information. Failure to provide it will result in the rejection of your claim.)
II. EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION:
1. Were you employed by 8X8, Inc. as a Sales Representatives, Account Managers and/or Account Executives and classified as “exempt” from overtime for one or more weeks during the period January 27, 2006 and June 30, 2010?
YES________
NO_________
If you answered “NO” you are not included in the class that is the subject of this lawsuit, and you should not further complete or return this Claim Form.
2. 8X8, Inc.’s personnel records state that the dates you were employed as an exempt a Sales Representative, Account Manager and/or Account Executive qualifying you for inclusion as a member of the Settlement Class are ________[PRE-PRINTED]__________. Are the dates listed here correct?
YES________
NO_________ If you marked “NO” to question no. 2, please attach documentation which supports your belief. Failure to provide supporting documentation of the dates you held a position qualifying you for inclusion as a member of the Settlement Class may result in your dispute being rejected.
III. SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION OF COURT:
Claimant (the undersigned) submits this Claim Form under the terms of the Proposed Settlement described in the Notice of Class Action Settlement and Final Fairness Hearing. Claimant also submits to the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara County Superior Court with respect to Claimant’s claim as a class member and for purposes of enforcing the release of
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
2
claims set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The full and precise terms of the proposed settlement are contained in the “Class Action Settlement Agreement” filed with the court. Claimant further acknowledges that Claimant is bound by and subject to the terms of any judgment that may be entered in this class action. Claimant agrees to furnish additional information to support this claim if required to do so.
IV. RELEASE OF CLAIMS
In consideration of this settlement, I hereby waive, fully release and forever discharge 8X8, Inc. and the other Releasees from any and all claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, damages, action or causes of action of any kind, whether known or unknown, which have been or could have been asserted against 8X8 and/or the Releasees arising out of or related to all claims for wages, overtime pay, pay for all time allegedly worked but not compensated, commissions, business expenses and all other claims of any kind for wages, penalties, interests, costs and attorneys’ fees arising from the alleged violation of any provision of common law, California law and/or Federal law which were or could have been raised as part of the Named Plaintiffs’ claims, including but not limited to claims under California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 204, 206.5, 210, 218, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 551, 552, 558, 1182, 1194, 1197, 1198, 2698, 2699, 2699.5, 2802 and Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. except as to such rights or claims as may be created by this Agreement occurring during the Class Period For purposes of this Agreement, “Releasees” shall mean 8x8, its affiliates, subsidiaries, parent, successors-in-interest, and assigns, and all of their present, former and future officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, attorneys, insurers, consultants, contractors, customers, vendors and representatives.. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to waive any right that is not subject to waiver by private agreement, including without limitation any claims arising under state unemployment insurance or workers’ compensation laws.
I understand and agree that this is a full, complete and final general release of any and all claims described as aforesaid, to the fullest extent permitted by law, and agree that it shall apply to all unknown, unanticipated, unsuspected and undisclosed claims, demands, liabilities, actions or causes of action, as well as those which are now known, anticipated, suspected or disclosed, as described in the preceding paragraph above. I am aware of the contents of Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California, and that section and the benefits thereof are hereby expressly waived. Section 1542 reads as follows:
A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.
V. NO RETALIATION
Defendant will not retaliate against any person because he or she submits a Claim Form in connection with this settlement. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing statements are true, correct, and complete. Executed this ____________day of _____________, 2011, at ____________________, __________.
(month) (year) (city) (state)
____________________________________ Signature of Claimant
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
3
Name: _____________________________________________________________________ (Print) Last First Middle Reminder checklist:
1. Sign and date directly above. 2. Keep a copy for your records. 3. Send Proof of Claim Form via first-class mail to:
8X8 Overtime Settlement c/o Gilardi and Company LLC ______________________ ______________________
4. Make sure that the Proof of Claim is post-marked no later than by _____________, 2011.
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
-3- CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT C
[PROPOSED ORDER OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT]
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 1 - [PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
NIKKI MEIERDIERCKS, an individual; KARIN FLAVETTA, an individual; FRANK TORRES, an individual; on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. 8X8, INC.; and Does 1 to 10, Defendants.
))))))))))))
Case No. 30-2009-00317275 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Date: __________________ Time: ______________ Dept.: 1 Judge: Hon. James Kleinberg
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
The Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement by Plaintiffs Nikki
Meierdiercks, Karin Flavetta, and Frank Torres (“Plaintiffs”) in the above-entitled matter
came on before this Court on ________________, 2011. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik, appeared for Plaintiffs and the putative Class; Simpson, Garrity, Innes & Jacuzzi
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 2 - [PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER
appeared on behalf of Defendant 8X8, Inc. (“Defendant”). After reviewing and considering
the Class Action Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities,
the Declaration of Kyle Nordrehaug, the proposed Notice and Claim Form, and good cause
appearing thereof, the Court makes the following findings of fact and law:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement is
hereby GRANTED.
1. The Court grants preliminary approval to the Class Action Settlement
Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”). The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement
Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable and preliminarily approves the terms of the
settlement including the amount of the Settlement Total, the attorneys’ fees, the payment of
litigation expenses, and the Service Payments.
2. The Court approves, as to form and content, the Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action in the form attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement
and the Claim Form attached as Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement. The Court
approves the procedure for Class Members to opt out and to object as set forth in the
Notice. The Court approves the Election Not to Participate in Settlement in the form
attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit F.
3. The provisions of the Settlement Agreement, and the provisions of the Class
Notice and the Claim Form, are deemed incorporated herein as if expressly set forth, and
have the full force and effect of an Order of this Court. Upon final approval of the
Settlement Agreement at or following the Final Approval Hearing, all provisions of the
Settlement Agreement shall be deemed incorporated herein as if expressly set forth, and
shall have the full force and effect of an Order of this Court. All terms defined therein shall
have the same meaning as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
4. The notice to be provided as set forth in the Settlement Agreement is hereby
found to be the best means practicable of providing notice under the circumstances, and,
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3 - [PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER
when completed, shall constitute due and sufficient notice of the class action, proposed
settlement, and the final approval hearing to all persons affected by and/or authorized to
participate in the settlement.
5. It is ordered that the Class described in the Settlement Agreement is
conditionally certified for settlement purposes only.
6. The Court appoints Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as Class Counsel.
7. The Court approves the selection of Gilardi & Co. to be the Claims
Administrator. The expenses of the Claims Administrator shall be payable from the
Settlement Total as defined in the Settlement Agreement.
8. A Final Fairness Hearing shall be heard in Department 1 of this Court on
__________, 2011 at __:__ p.m. to determine whether the proposed settlement of the
Action should be finally approved by the Court and the amount of attorneys’ fees, litigation
expenses and service awards that should be awarded in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement.
9. No later than thirty (30) days before the Final Fairness Hearing, Plaintiffs
shall submit their Motion for Final Approval Class Action Settlement to Department 1 of
this Court.
10. After entry by the Court of this Order, and as provided for in the Settlement
Agreement, the Parties shall cause to be mailed by the Settlement Administrator a Notice of
Class Action Settlement in the form attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement, a
Claim Form in the form attached as Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement; and an Election
Not to Participate in Settlement in the form attached to the Settlement Agreement as
Exhibit F. Prior to the Final Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel shall file with the Court
declaration of due diligence setting forth its compliance with the procedures set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. Compliance with these procedures shall constitute due and
sufficient notice to Class Members of the pendency of the Litigation, the certification of the
Class, the Settlement Agreement, this Order for Notice of Class Settlement, and the Final
Fairness Hearing, and shall satisfy the requirements of due process.
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 4 - [PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER
11. Class Members who object to approval of the Settlement Agreement may
appear at the Final Fairness Hearing to object to the Settlement Agreement; provided,
however, that each such objecting Class Member shall file with this Court and serve upon
Class Counsel and Defense Counsel written notice of his or her intent to object along with
any briefs, exhibits, and any other supporting materials, setting forth all his or her
objections to the settlement in accordance with the Objection procedure set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and in the Notice of Class Settlement.
12. No Class Member shall be entitled to be heard at the Final Fairness Hearing,
and no papers or briefs of objecting Class Members shall be received or considered by the
Court, unless that Class Member has timely submitted the written notice of intent to object
and supporting papers, or unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
13. Any Class Member who fails to submit timely written notice of intent to
object and supporting papers shall be deemed to have waived and shall be forever
foreclosed from questioning or making any objection to the Settlement Agreement, except
by special permission of the Court, and shall be subject to and bound by the Settlement
Agreement.
14. Any additional documentation or memoranda which Class Counsel or
Counsel for Defendant wishes the Court to consider to support the settlement or Settlement
Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees, including any documentation or memoranda
that the Parties wish to file in response to any objections to the settlement or request for
attorneys’ fees made by any Objecting Settlement Class Members, shall be filed with the
Court no later than five (5) court days before the date of the Final Fairness Hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: ________________ __________________________________________
THE HONORABLE JAMES KLEINBERG JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STATE OF CALIFORNIA
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
-4- CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT D
[PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT]
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 1 - [PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
NIKKI MEIERDIERCKS, an individual; KARIN FLAVETTA, an individual; FRANK TORRES, an individual; on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. 8X8, INC.; and Does 1 to 10, Defendants.
))))))))))))
Case No. 30-2009-00317275 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Date: __________________ Time: ______________ Dept.: 1 Judge: Hon. James Kleinberg
Plaintiffs’ motion for an order finally approving the Class Action Settlement
Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) and for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs duly
came on for hearing on ____________, 2011 before the Honorable James Kleinberg, Judge
of the above entitled Court. Kyle Nordrehaug of the law firm of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
& Bhowmik appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs Nikki Meierdiercks, Karin Flavetta, and Frank
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 2 - [PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER
Torres (“Plaintiffs”). Jamie Rudman of the law firm of Simpson, Garrity, Innes & Jacuzzi
appeared on behalf of Defendant 8X8, Inc. (“Defendant”).
I.
FINDINGS
Based on the oral and written argument and evidence presented in connection with
the motion, the Court makes the following findings:
Preliminary Approval of the Class Settlement
On _____ __, 2011, the Court granted preliminary approval of a class wide
settlement. At this same time the court approved certification of a provisional settlement
class.
Notice to Settlement Class
1. In compliance with the Preliminary Approval Order, class notice was
mailed by first class mail to class members at their last known addresses on or about
_____________, 2011. Mailing of class notice and claim form at their last known
addresses was the best notice practicable under the circumstances and was reasonably
calculated to communicate actual notice of the litigation and the proposed settlement to
members of the Settlement Class.
2. The deadline for opting out or objecting was _____________, 2011.
There was an adequate interval between notice and deadline to permit class members to
choose what to do and act on their decision. ____ class members opted out.
Fairness Of Settlement
1. The Settlement Agreement is entitled to a presumption of fairness.
(Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.)
a. The settlement was reached through arm's-length bargaining
between the parties during a mediation before David Rotman, a respected mediator of wage
and hour class actions. There has been no collusion between the parties in reaching the
proposed settlement.
b. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery have been more than
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3 - [PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER
sufficient to allow the court and counsel to act intelligently.
c. Counsel for both parties are experienced in similar
employment class action litigation. All counsel recommended approval of the Settlement
Agreement.
d. The percentage of objectors is small. Zero (0) objections
were received. _______ requests for exclusion have been received.
2. The consideration to be given to the Settlement Class under the terms
of the Settlement Agreement is reasonable considering the strengths and weaknesses of the
claims asserted in this action and is fair, reasonable and adequate compensation for the
dismissal of this action and release of class members’ claims, given the uncertainties and
risks of the litigation and the delays which would ensue from continued prosecution of the
action.
3. The Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable and in the
best interests of the Settlement Class and its members.
Attorneys’ Fees
1. The Settlement Agreement provides for an award of up to
$156,250.00 as Class Counsel Fees Payment and up to $25,000 for Class Counsel Litigation
Expenses Payment in this action, subject to the Court’s approval. Class Counsel requests
an award of $___________ as Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment, and
$156,250.00 for attorneys’ fees.
2. An award of $156,250.00 for Class Counsel Fees Payment and
$________________ for Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment, is reasonable, in light
of the contingent nature of Settlement Class Counsel's fee, the hours worked by Settlement
Class Counsel, and the results achieved by Settlement Class Counsel. The requested
attorneys’ fee award represents twenty-five percent (25%) of the Settlement Total which is
reasonable and on the low end of the benchmark for fee awards in common fund cases.
Service Award
3. The Settlement Agreement provides for a service award of up to
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 4 - [PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER
$5,000.00 for each of the Plaintiffs, subject to Court's discretion. The amount of the
payment is reasonable in light of the risks and burdens undertaken by a named plaintiff in
class action litigation and the services rendered by the Plaintiffs to obtain this Settlement.
II
ORDERS
Based on the foregoing findings, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. The Class is certified for the purposes of settlement only. The Class
is hereby defined to include:
All persons who worked in California for 8x8, Inc. for one or more weeks between
January 27, 2006 and June 30, 2010 as Sales Representatives, Account Managers
and/or Account Executives and who were classified as “exempt” from overtime.
2. All persons who meet the foregoing definition are members of the
Class, except for those individuals who filed a timely request for exclusion from the class.
3. The Settlement Agreement is hereby approved as fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interest of the Class and its members.
4. Class Counsel are awarded $156,250.00 as Class Counsel Fees
Payment and $__________ for Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment Attorneys’
Fees. Class Counsel shall not seek or obtain any other compensation or reimbursement
from Defendant, Plaintiffs or members of the Class.
5. The payment of a $5,000.00 service award for each of the Plaintiffs
is approved.
6. A judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice shall be
entered. The judgment shall bind each member of the Class. The judgment shall operate as
a full release and discharge of claims. All rights to appeal the judgment have been waived.
The judgment and final order shall have a res judicata effect and bar each Plaintiff and each
Class Member who has not been excluded from the Settlement Class from bringing any
action asserting “Released Claims” as that term is defined in the Settlement Agreement.
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 5 - [PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER
7. Notice of entry of this order and the ensuing final judgment shall be
given to Class Counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs and all members of the Settlement Class. It
shall not be necessary to send notice of entry of this order or the ensuing final judgment to
individual members of the Class. The time for any appeal by any member of the Class shall
run from service of notice of entry of the order and judgment on Class Counsel and
Defendant.
8. After entry of final judgment, the Court shall retain jurisdiction to
construe, interpret, implement, and enforce the Settlement Agreement, to hear and resolve
any contested challenge to a claim for settlement benefits, and to supervise and adjudicate
any dispute arising from or in connection with distribution settlement benefits.
Dated: ________________ __________________________________________
THE HONORABLE JAMES KLEINBERG JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STATE OF CALIFORNIA
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
-5- CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT E
[PROPOSED JUDGMENT]
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 1 - PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
NIKKI MEIERDIERCKS, an individual; KARIN FLAVETTA, an individual; FRANK TORRES, an individual; on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. 8X8, INC.; and Does 1 to 10, Defendants.
Case No. 110cv162413 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT Dept.: 1 Judge: Hon. James Kleinberg
The parties having settled this action and the Court having entered a Final Approval
Order and good cause appearing therefor,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDICATED AND DECREED THAT:
1. This entire action, including all claims asserted on behalf of Plaintiffs Nikki
Meierdiercks, Karin Flavetta, and Frank Torres (“Plaintiffs”) individually and on behalf of
the Class, be, and it hereby is, dismissed with prejudice.
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 2 - [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
2. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to construe, interpret, implement, and
enforce the Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”), to hear and
resolve any contested challenge to a claim for settlement benefits, and to supervise and
adjudicate any dispute arising from or in connection with distribution settlement benefits.
3. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, except as otherwise
provided in the Settlement Agreement and the Order Granting Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement.
4. Plaintiff and each member of the “Class” have released and are hereby
permanently enjoined and restrained from filing or prosecuting any “Released Claims”
against the Defendant 8X8, Inc. (“Defendant”) or any of the “Releasees.”
5. As used in paragraph 4 above, the quoted terms have the meaning set forth
below:
a. “Class” means: “All persons who worked in California for 8x8, Inc.
for one or more weeks between January 27, 2006 and June 30, 2010 as Sales
Representatives, Account Managers and/or Account Executives and who were classified as
“exempt” from overtime”
b. “Released Claims” mean and include those claims as defined in
Section III(F) of the Settlement Agreement.
c. “Releasees” means 8x8, Inc., its affiliates, subsidiaries, parent,
successors-in-interest, and assigns, and all of their present, former and future officers,
directors, shareholders, employees, agents, attorneys, insurers, consultants, contractors,
customers, vendors and representatives.
LET JUDGMENT BE FORTHWITH ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: ________________ ________________________________________________
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3 - [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
THE HONORABLE JAMES KLEINBERG JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STATE OF CALIFORNIA
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
-6- CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT F
ELECTION NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
ELECTION NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT
IF YOU WISH TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST COMPLETE, SIGN, DATE, AND RETURN THIS FORM TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS:
8x8 Overtime Settlement Gilardi & Co. PO Box ____________ San Rafael, CA 94__________
YOU SHOULD SEND THIS FORM BY FIRST-CLASS UNITED STATES MAIL. IT MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN _____________, 2011. I hereby elect to opt out and exclude myself from the Class in the class action “Nikki Meirdiercks, et al. v. 8x8, Inc.” Case No. 110cv162413, (the “Action”), filed by Plaintiffs against Defendant on January 27, 2010 in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara. I confirm that I have received the Notice of Class Action Settlement in the Action. I have decided NOT to participate in the proposed settlement. I understand that, by excluding myself from the Settlement, I am not entitled to receive any payment from the Settlement. Dated: _____________________________________________
Signature _____________________________________________ Type or print name _____________________________________________ All other names used during employment at 8X8, Inc. _____________________________________________ Street address _____________________________________________ City, state, and zip code _____________________________________________ Telephone number _____________________________________________Social security number
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
DECLARATION OF KYLE NORDREHAUG
EXHIBIT #2
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik (AV) 2255 Calle Clara, La Jolla, California 92037
Tel: (858) 551-1223Fax: (885) 551-1232
FIRM RESUME
Areas of Practice: Consumer and Securities Class Action, Wage and Hour Class Action, CivilLitigation, Transactional Law, Business Litigation, Products Liability and Construction Defects.
ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES
Norman B. Blumenthal PartnerPractice Areas: Consumer and Securities Class Action, Civil Litigation, Wage and Hour ClassActions, Transactional LawAdmitted: 1973, Illinois; 1976, CaliforniaBiography: Law Clerk to Justice Thomas J. Moran, Illinois Supreme Court, 1973-1975. Instructor,Oil and Gas Law: California Western School of Law, 1981; University of San Diego School of Law,1983. President and Chairman of the Board, San Diego Petroleum Club Inc., 1985-1986. ChiefOperating Officer and General Counsel, Brumark Corporation, 1980-1987. Member: San Diego County, Illinois State and American Bar Associations; State Bar of California.Educated: University of Wisconsin (B.A., 1970); Loyola University of Chicago (J.D., 1973)Born: Washington, D.C., 1948
Kyle R. NordrehaugPartnerPractice Areas: Consumer and Securities Class Actions, Wage and Hour Class Actions, CivilLitigationAdmitted: 1999, CaliforniaMember: State Bar of California, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Court of AppealsEducated: University of California at Berkeley (B.A., 1994); University of San Diego School ofLaw (J.D. 1999)Born: San Diego, California, 1972
Aparajit Bhowmik PartnerPractice Areas: Civil Litigation; Consumer Class Actions, Wage and Hour Class ActionsAdmitted: 2006, CaliforniaEducated: University of California at San Diego (B.A., 2002); University of San Diego School ofLaw (J.D. 2006)
Scott MacraeContract AttorneyPractice Areas: Consumer and Securities Class ActionAdmitted: 1982, CaliforniaEducated: Bowdoin College (B.A., 1978); University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law (J.D., 1982)Born: Summit, New Jersey, 1956
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
REPORTED CASES
In re Tobacco Cases II, 41 Cal. 4th 1257 (2007); Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court, 24Cal. 4th 906 (2001); Rocker v. KPMG LLP, 148 P.3d 703; 122 Nev. 1185 (2006); PCO, Inc. v.Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, 150 Cal. App. 4th 384 (2007); Hallv. County of Los Angeles, 148 Cal. App. 4th 318 (2007); Coshow v. City of Escondido, 132 Cal.App. 4th 687 (2005); Daniels v. Philip Morris, 18 F.Supp 2d 1110 (S.D. Cal.1998); Gibson v. WorldSavings & Loan Asso., 103 Cal. App. 4th 1291 (2003); Jordan v. Department of Motor Vehicles,75 Cal. App. 4th 445 (1999); Jordan v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 100 Cal.App. 4th 431 (2002);Norwest Mortgage, Inc. v. Superior Court, 72 Cal.App.4th 214 (1999); Hildago v. DiversifiedTransp. Sya, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 3207 (9th Cir. 1998); Kensington Capital Mgal. v. Oakley, Inc.,1999 U.S. Dist LEXIS 385; Fed.Sec.L.Rep. (CCH) P90, 411 (1999 C.D. Cal.); Lister v. Oakley, Inc.,1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 384; Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P90,409 (C.D Cal. 1999); Olszewski v.Scripps Health, 30 Cal. 4th 798 (2003); Steroid Hormone Product Cases, 181 Cal. App. 4th 145(2010); Owen v. Macy's, Inc., 175 Cal. App. 4th 462 (2009); Taiheiyo Cement Corp. v. SuperiorCourt, 117 Cal. App. 4th 380 (2004); Taiheiyo Cement Corp. v. Superior Court, 105 Cal.App. 4th398 (2003); McMeans v. Scripps Health, Inc., 100 Cal. App. 4th 507 (2002); Ramos v. CountrywideHome Loans, 82 Cal.App. 4th 615 (2000); Tevssier v. City of San Diego, 81 Cal.App. 4th 685(2000); Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court, 70 Cal. App. 4th 299 (1999); Silvas v. E*TradeMortg. Corp., 514 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2008); Silvas v. E*Trade Mortg. Corp., 421 F. Supp. 2d 1315(S.D. Cal. 2006); McPhail v. First Command Fin. Planning, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26544(S.D. Cal. 2009); McPhail v. First Command Fin. Planning, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 514 (S.D. Cal. 2008);McPhail v. First Command Fin. Planning, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 598 (S.D. Cal. 2007); Barcia v.Contain-A-Way, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17118 (S.D. Cal. 2009); Barcia v. Contain-A-Way,Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27365 (S.D. Cal. 2008); Wise v. Cubic Def. Applications, Inc., 2009U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11225 (S.D. Cal. 2009); Gabisan v. Pelican Prods., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1391(S.D. Cal. 2009); La Jolla Friends of the Seals v. Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin. Nat'l MarineFisheries Serv., 630 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (S.D. Cal. 2009); La Jolla Friends of the Seals v. Nat'l Oceanic& Atmospheric Admin. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102380 (S.D. Cal.2008); Louie v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78314 (S.D. Cal. 2008);Weltman v. Ortho Mattress, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20521 (S.D. Cal. 2010); Weltman v. OrthoMattress, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60344 (S.D. Cal. 2008); Curry v. CTB McGraw-Hill, LLC,2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5920; 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1888; 37 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2390(N.D. Cal. 2006); Reynov v. ADP Claims Servs. Group, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94332 (N.D. Cal.2006); Kennedy v. Natural Balance Pet Foods, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 248 (9th Cir. 2010);Kennedy v. Natural Balance Pet Foods, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38889 (S.D. Cal. 2008);Kennedy v. Natural Balance Pet Foods, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57766 (S.D. Cal. 2007); Sussexv. Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29503 (D. Nev. 2009); Picus v.Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 651 (D. Nev. 2009); Tull v. Stewart Title of Cal., Inc., 2009 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 14171 (S.D. Cal. 2009); Keshishzadeh v. Gallagher, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46805(S.D. Cal. 2010); In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL Docket No. 1850 (All Cases), 2008 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 94603 (D.N.J. 2008); Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 160 Cal. App. 4th638 (2008); Rezec v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., 116 Cal. App. 4th 135 (2004); Badillo v.Am. Tobacco Co., 202 F.R.D. 261 (D. Nev. 2001).
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
LEAD COUNSEL - CLASS ACTION
Adkins v. Washington Mutual Bank - Class Certification Granted, SettledSan Diego County Superior Court, Case No. GIC819546Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Bank Interest OverchargesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Agah v. CompUSA - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District of California Case No. SA CV05-1087 DOC (Anx)Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Unfair Rebate ProgramPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Akers v. The San Diego Union Tribune - In LitigationSan Diego County Superior Court, Case No 37-2010-00088571Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Wage and Hour ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Allec v. Cross Country Bank - SettledOrange County Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Deceptive AdvertisingPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Arreguin v. Impact Solutions -Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 340107Nature of Case: Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Barcia v. Contain-A-Way - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District CaliforniaCase No. 07 cv 0938 Nature of Case: ERISA and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; United Employees Law Group
Behar v. Union Bank - SettledOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00317275Nature of Case: Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations for Priority BankingOfficersPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Bermant v. Bank of America, Investment Services, Inc. - SettledLos Angeles Superior Court, Civil Action No. BC342505Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Arias, Ozzello & Gignac; United Employees Law Group
Bolger v. Dr. Martens - SettledSan Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Deceptive AdvertisingPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
Bova v. Washington Mutual Bank / JP Morgan Chase - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 07-cv-2410 Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Briseno v. American Savings Bank - Class Certification Granted, SettledOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 774773Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Force Ordered Insurance OverchargesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Chavez & Gertler
Brueske v. Welk Resorts - In LitigationSan Diego Superior Court, Case No 37-2010-00086460Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Wage Hour ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Buonomo v. ValueVision - SettledMinnesota District CourtNature of Case: False Advertising, Breach of WarrantyPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, P.A.
Butler v. Oberman, Tivoli, Miller and Pickert, Inc. - “In Litigation” Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 339051Nature of Case: LaborPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Cabral v. Creative Communication Tech. - Class Certification Granted, SettledLos Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC402239Nature of Case: Labor Code Violations and Expense Reimbursement under Labor Code 2802Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Citizens for Fair Treatment v. Quest Communications - SettledSan Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Failure to Pay for Vacation TimePlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Cohen v. Bosch Tool - SettledSan Diego Superior Court, Case No. GIC 853562Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices - Deceptive Advertising - Made in the USA violationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Collins v. Galpin Motors - “In Litigation” Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 343915Nature of Case: OvertimePlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Comstock v. Washington Mutual Bank - Class Certification Granted, SettledSan Diego County Superior Court, Case No. GIC820803Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Force Order InsurancePlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Conley v. Norwest - Settled
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. N73741Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Force Ordered Insurance OverchargesPlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Connell v. Sun Microsystems - SettledAlameda Superior Court, Case No. RG06252310Nature of Case: Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; United Employees Law Group; Chavez & Gertler
Curry v. California Testing Bureau/McGraw Hill - Dismissal Affirmed on Appeal United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitU.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San JoseCivil Action No. C-05-4003 JWNature of Case: ERISA ClaimPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Chavez & Gertler
Danford v. Movo Media - SettledSan Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Unlawful Violation of Unruh Civil Rights ActPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Daniels, et al. v. Philip Morris,(In Re Tobacco Cases II) – Class Certification Granted, Reviewbefore the California Supreme Court Affirmed Summary JudgmentSan Diego Superior Court, Case No. JCCP 4042Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Unlawful, Deceptive and Unfair Marketing of Cigarettesto ChildrenPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Thorsnes, Bartolotta & Mcguire; Chavez & Gertler
Delmare v. Sungard Higher Education - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 07-cv-1801Nature of Case: Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code Violations, FLSAPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Dewane v. Prudential - Settled U.S. District Court, Central District of CaliforniaCase No. SA CV 05-1031Nature of Case: Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Wynne Law Firm; Thierman Law Firm P.C.
Dilag v. Ideal Products - In LitigationSan Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2009-00091791Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices - Deceptive Advertising - Made in the USA violationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Dirienzo v. Dunbar Armored - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-2745Nature of Case: Expense Reimbursement under Labor Code 2802, Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Downtown Inns v. Pac Bell - SettledCalifornia Public Utilities Commission
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
Nature of Case: Illegal ChargePlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Sullivan Hill.
Enger v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-1670Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code Violations, FLSAPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Fallah v. Cingular Wireless - SettledOrange County Superior Court / U.S. District Court, Central District of CaliforniaNature of Case: Unfair Competition - Unfair Rebate ProgramPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Fierro v. Chase Manhattan - Class Certification Granted, SettledSan Diego Superior Court, Case No. GIN033490Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Bank Interest OverchargesPlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Finch v. Lamps Plus, (Lamps Plus Credit Transaction Cases) - SettledSan Diego Superior Court, Case No. JCCP 4532Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Violation of Civil Code 1747.08Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Fletcher v. Verizon - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-1736Nature of Case: Employee Overtime, Labor Code Violations, FLSAPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Francisco v. DieboldU.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-1889Nature of Case: Employee Overtime, Labor Code Violations, FLSAPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Friend v. Wellpoint - SettledLos Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC345147Nature of Case: Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; United Employees Law Group
Gabisan v. Pelican Products - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District CaliforniaCase No. 08 cv 1361Nature of Case: Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; United Employees Law Group
Getchius v. National Private Security Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 338907Nature of Case: Employee Claim, OvertimePlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Gibson v. World Savings - Judgment for Class after Appeal - SettledOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 762321
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Force Ordered Insurance OverchargesPlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Gill v. Parabody, Inc. - SettledSan Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Product DefectPlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Goodman v. Platinum - In LitigationU.S. District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. 09-cv-00957Nature of Case: Violation of Nevada and Federal law in the sale of Condo/Hotel units, ILSAPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Gerard & Associates
Greer v. Fleet Mortgage - SettledSan Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Bank OverchargesPlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Gruender v. First American Title - SettledOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 06 CC 00197Nature of Case: Title Officer Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group; Wagner& Jones; Cornwell & Sample
Gujjar v. Consultancy Services Limited - In LitigationOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2010-00365905Nature of Case: IT Analyst Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Guzman v. GNC, Inc. - “In Litigation” U.S. District Court, Central District of California Case No. CV 06-2326 MMM FMOxNature of Case: Unfair Competition - Illegal Product SalesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye,O’Neill & Mullis, P.A.
Guzman v. Muscletech. - “In Litigation”U.S. District Court, Central District of CaliforniaCase No. Case No. CV06-2377 CAS JTLxNature of Case: Unfair Competition - Illegal Product SalesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Thanasides, Zalkin & Acero; Trenam, Kemker,Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O’Neill & Mullis, P.A.
Hahn v. Circuit City – SettledSan Diego Superior Court; U.S. District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaNature of Case: Unfair Business Practices, Failure to Pay Vacation TimePlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Hall v. County of Los Angeles - On AppealLos Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC208582Nature of Case: Gender Discrimination
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; The Lewis Law Firm
Handler v. Oppenheimer -Los Angeles Superior Court, Civil Action No. BC343542Nature of Case: Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Perona, Langer, Beck, Lallande and Serbin
Higgins v. Maryland Casualty - SettledSan Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Deceptive Insurance OverchargesPlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Hoffman v. National Warranty Insurance - Class Certification Granted, SettledDistrict Court for the State of Nevada Nature of Case: Auto Warranty FraudPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Greco, Traficante & Edwards; Gerard & Associates
Hollander v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries - “In Litigation”Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.L.A.S.C. Case No. BC311446Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Illegal Product SalesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Thanasides, Zalkin & Acero; Trenam, Kemker,Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O’Neill & Mullis, P.A.
Jefferson v. Pepsi - In LitigationOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00180102Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Jones v. E*Trade Mortgage - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District CaliforniaCase No. 02-CV-1123 L (JAH)Nature of Case: TILA ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Robert C. Fellmeth, Esq.
Kennedy v. Natural Balance - Dismissal Reversed on Appeal, In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District California,Remanded to San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2007-00066201Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Deceptive Advertising, Made in the USA violationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
Keshishzadeh v. Arthur J. Gallagher Service Co. - Class Certification Granted, In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-0168Nature of Case: Claims Representative Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
King v. Nordstrom - Settled San Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Failure to Pay for Vacation TimePlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
Kinney v. AIG Domestic Claims / Chartis - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:10-cv-00399Nature of Case: Claims Representative Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Kove v. North American Title Co. - In LitigationLos Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC426111Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Failure to Pay CommissionsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Kove v. Old Republic Title - In LitigationAlameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG09477437Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Failure to Pay CommissionsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Langille v. EMC - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-0168Nature of Case: Software Engineer Misclassification, FLSA, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Levine v. Groeniger - SettledAlameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG09476193Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Linder v. OCWEN (In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Servicing Litig.) - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Central District California, Case No. 07cv501U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. Illinois, Case No. MDL 1604Nature of Case: Lender Placed Insurance OverchargesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Nicholas & Butler
Lopez v. K-Mart - “In Litigation” Ventura County Superior Court, Case No. BC351983Nature of Case: Overtime - Unfair Business PracticePlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug & Arias, Ozzello, & Gignac, LLP & UnitedEmployees Law Group
Louie / Stringer v. Kaiser - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08-cv-0795 Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group
Maitland v. Marriott - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08-cv-0795 Nature of Case: Chef Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Mandell v. Republic Bank - SettledLos Angeles County Superior CourtNature of Case: Breach of Fiduciary Duties to IRA Account HoldersPlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
Mann v. NEC Electronics America - SettledSanta Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 109CV132089Nature of Case: Meal and Rest Break ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group, Qualls& Workman
Mann v. Vital Pharmaceuticals - “In Litigation” Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 310790Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Illegal Product SalesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug &Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O’Neill & Mullis, P.A.
Manzanarez v. Home Savings of America - SettledSan Francisco Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Overcharge for Inspection FeesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Marchese v. Ty, Inc. - Settled San Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Deceptive AdvertisingPlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Martinez v. Yahoo, Inc. - SettledNature of Case: Deceptive AdvertisingPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Mathies v. Union Bank - In LitigationSan Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-10-498077Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Matloubian v. Home Savings of America - SettledSan Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Force Ordered Insurance OverchargesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Chavez & Gertler
McMeans v. ScrippsHealth, - SettledSan Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Competition, Lien OverchargesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
McPhail v. First Command - SettledUnited States District Court for the Southern District of CaliforniaCase No.05CV0179 IEG (JMA)Nature of Case: Securities Fraud, 10(b)(5) violationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug appointed Lead Counsel, Greco & Traficante &Whatley Drake LLC & Gray & White,& Brewer & Carlson, LLP & Franklin & Hance, PSC
Meco v. International Medical Research (and related cases) - Judgment for Class After TrialLos Angeles Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Competition, Product Adulteration, Illegal Sale of Drugs
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Meierdiercks v. 8x8, Inc. - In LitigationSanta Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 110CV162413Nature of Case: Sales Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Morse v. Marie Callender Pie Shop - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 09-cv-1305Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Muntz v. Lowe’s HIW - SettledSan Diego County Superior Court, Case No. GIC880932Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Violation of Civil Code 1747.08Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Nakagawa v. LPJ Pharmaceuticals - “In Litigation”Los Angeles Superior CourtCase No. 04CECG 00453Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Illegal Product SalesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug &Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O’Neill & Mullis, P.A.
Navarette v. Edwards Theaters/Century - Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 05CC00211Nature of Case: OvertimePlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Nelson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance - SettledBrazoria County District Court, TexasNature of Case: Deceptive Business Practices in sale of oil & gas reserve insurancePlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Nguyen v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage - SettledOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 05 CC 00116Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices - Force Ordered Insurance OverchargesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Olszewski v. ScrippsHealth - Judgment for Plaintiff, Affirmed by Supreme Court California Supreme Court Decision in Favor of PlaintiffSan Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Competition, Lien OverchargesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Owen v. Robinsons May - DismissedLos Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC355629Nature of Case: Failure to Pay Earned Vacation, Violation of Labor Code 227.3Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group; Clark& Markham
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
Pacheco v. Lexicon Marketing - Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 342265Nature of Case: OvertimePlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Patelski v. The Boeing Company – SettledUnited States District Court, Southern District of New York; transferred to United States District Court, Eastern District of MissouriNature of Case: Refund ActionPlaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Sigman, Lewis & Feinberg, P.C.
Pearlman v. Bank of America - SettledSan Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Force Ordered Insurance OverchargesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Chavez & Gertler
Picus v. Wal-Mart Stores - In LitigationU.S. District Court, District of NevadaCase No. 2:07-CV-00682Nature of Case: Deceptive Advertising, Made in the USA violationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Gerard & Associates
Pittard v. Salus Homecare - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08 cv 1398Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group
Prince v. ClientLogic - In LitigationEighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, NevadaNo Case No. A517624Nature of Case: OvertimePlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug & Gerard & Osuch, LLP
Port v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group - SettledSan Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2007-00067538Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group
Proctor v. Ameriquest - SettledOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 06CC00108Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group, Clark & Markham
Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage - Decision on AppealSan Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Business Practices - Bank Interest OverchargesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Ralphs v. Blockbuster, Inc. – SettledSan Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Unlawful Late Fees
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Morris & Associates, Pettersen & Bark
Ramos v. Countrywide - SettledSan Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Force Ordered Insurance OverchargesPlaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Sullivan Hill; Chavez & Gertler
Rangel v. Balboa Ambulance - Class Certification Granted, In LitigationSan Diego County Superior Court, Case No. Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Pettersen & Bark
Ray v. Lawyers Title, Fidelity National, Commonwealth Land Title, Chicago Title - In LitigationOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2010-00359306Nature of Case: Failure to Pay Severance WagesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Pettersen & Bark
Redin v. Sterling Trust - SettledLos Angeles Superior CourtNature of Case: Breach of Fiduciary Duties of IRA AdministratorPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Reynolds v. Marlboro/Philip Morris U.S.A. - Decision on AppealUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 08-55114U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 05 CV 1876 JAHNature of Case: Unfair Competition, Violation of Civil Code §1749.5Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Rezec v. Sony – SettledSan Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Fraudulent AdvertisingPlaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Prongay & Borderud; The Cifarelli Law Firm
Rocheford v. SC&E Administrative Service - SettledOrange County Superior CourtNature of Case: Auto Warranty FraudPlaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Greco, Traficante & Edwards; Gerard, Osuch & Cisneros, LLP
Rix v. Lockheed Martin Corporation - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-2063Nature of Case: Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code Violations, FLSAPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Santone v. AT&T – SettledUnited states District Court, Southern District of AlabamaNature of Case: Unconscionable Business PracticesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Morris & Associates
Santos v. Sleep Train (Sleep Train Wage and Hour Cases) - In Litigation
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2008-00214586San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. JCCP 4553Nature of Case: Commission Sales Employee Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Sayaman v. Baxter Healthcare - U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CV 10-1040Nature of Case: Lab Technician Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Schulz v. Qualxserv, LLC / Worldwide TechservicesU.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-0017 Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations, Expense ReimbursementPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Scott v. Blockbuster, Inc. – SettledCount of Appeals, Ninth District of Texas, Beaumont, TexasNature of Case: Unlawful Late FeesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Brothers & Thomas, LLP, Vaughan O. Stewart
Shiell v. County of Los Angeles - On AppealLos Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC208583; [Related to]: BC208582 Nature of Case: Claim for Common Law EmploymentPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; The Lewis Law Firm
Silvas v. E*Trade - Dismissal Affirmed on AppealU.S. District Court, Southern District, Case No. 05cv02348 - W (NLS)Nature of Case: TILA ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Robert Fellmeth; The Law Offices of Daniel Harris;The Nygaard Law Firm
Sims v. Philip Morris, Inc. United States District Court, For the District of ColumbiaNature of Case: Unlawful Marketing of Cigarettes to ChildrenPlaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Thorsnes, Bartolotta & McGuire; Chavez & Gertler; Thomas E. Sharkey; Fleishman & Fisher
Sirota v. Swing-N-Slide - SettledWisconsin District Court, County of Rock Wisconsin, Case No. 95CV726JNature of Case: Fraudulent Stock Buy Back-Derivative ClaimPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Sullivan Hill; Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes &Lerach; Nowlan & Mouat
Smith v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 08-cv-02353Nature of Case: Kaiser Employee Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code Violations, FLSAPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Sones v. World Savings / Wachovia - SettledU.S. District Court, Norther District of California, Case No. 3:08-cv-04811Nature of Case: Kaiser Employee Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code Violations, FLSA
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Sorensen v. Binions, -Nature of Case: ERISA violationPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Gerard & Osuch
Spradlin v. Trump - In LitigationU.S. District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. 2:08-cv-01428Nature of Case: Securities Violations and Fraud in the sale of Condo/Hotel Units, ILSAPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Gerard & Associates; Burton Wiand,Esq.; Beck & Lee
Steele v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan - SettledU.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 07-5743Nature of Case: Kaiser Employee Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code Violations, FLSAPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Steroid Hormone Product Cases - Decision on Appeal in Favor of PlaintiffLos Angeles Superior Court, JCCP4363Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Sale of Illegal ProductsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Clark & Markham; Trenam, Kemker, Scharf,Barkin, Frye, O’Neill & Mullis, P.A.
Stevens v. Robinsons-May - SettledSan Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Failure to Pay for Vacation TimePlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Strauss v. Bayer Corporation – SettledUnited States District Court, District of MinnesotaNature of Case: Baycol Products Liaibility LitigationPlaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Fleishman & Fisher
Sussex v. Turnberry / MGM Grand Towers - In LitigationU.S. District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. 08-cv-00773Nature of Case: Securities Violations, Fraud in the sale of Condo/Hotel UnitsPlaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Gerard & Associates
Sustersic v. International Paper Co. - In LitigationOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00331538Nature of Case: Failure to Pay Earned Vacation; Violation of Labor Code 227.3Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Law Offices of William H. Steiner
Tan v. California State Automobile Assn. - Class Certification Granted, SettledU.S. District Court, Central District California, Case No. 07cv1011Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2008-00231219Nature of Case: IT Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, United Employees Law Group
Tauber v. Alaska Airlines, et al. - SettledLos Angeles Superior Court
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practice - Employment Practices, Violation of Labor Code 450Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Trujillo v. LivHome - In LitigationOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2008-00100372San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. JCCP4570Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Tull v. Stewart Title - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08-CV-1095Nature of Case: Title Officer and Escrow Officer Misclassification, FLSA, Overtime and LaborCode ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Pettersen & Bark
Van Gorp v. Ameriquest Mortgage/Deutsche Bank - Settled U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. SACV05-907 CJC (ANx)Nature of Case: OvertimePlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Wadhwa v. Escrow Plus - SettledLos Angeles Superior CourtNature of Case: Investment FraudPlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Walsh v. Apple, Inc. - SettledU.S. District Court, Northern District California, Case No. 08-04918Nature of Case: Computer Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Weinman v. Midbar Condo Development (Las Vegas One) - In LitigationU.S. District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. 2:08-cv-00684Nature of Case: Fraud in the sale of Condo/Hotel Units, ILSAPlaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Gerard & Associates
Weltman v. Ortho Mattress - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08-cv-0840Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00327802Nature of Case: Sales Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Wietzke v. Costar Realty - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 09-cv-2743Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corporation - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 3:09-cv-01669Nature of Case: Computer Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
Wise v. Cubic - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08-cv-2315Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Wilson v. D.R. Horton, U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08-0592Nature of Case: AntitrustPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Gerard & Associates
Yao v. Bodyonics, Ltd. - In LitigationLos Angeles Superior Court, JCCP No. 4363Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Illegal Product SalesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Zugich v. Wells Fargo Bank - SettledSan Francisco Superior CourtNature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Force Ordered Insurance OverchargesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Zurlo v. Mission Linen - SettledU.S. District Court, Central District, Case No. 08cv1326Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
CO-COUNSEL - Class Actions
Baxt v. Scor U.S. - SettledDelaware Court of ChanceryNature of Case: TakeoverPlaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Sullivan Hill; Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess, P.A.
Bronson v. Blech Securities - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District of New YorkNature of Case: Securities FraudPlaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Milberg; Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach; Kaplan,Kilsheimer & Fox; Berstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz; Berstein & Ostraff; Law Office of Dennis J.Johnson; John T. Maher; Sullivan Hill; Weil, Gotshal & Manges; Paul, Hastings, Janofsky &Walker; Andrews & Kurth; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Wolff & Samson; Heller,Horowitz & Feit, P.C.; Shereff, Friedman, Hoffman & Goodman, LLP; Debevoise & Plimpton;Smith, Campbell, Paduano; Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges; The Offices of Robert Swetnick;Crummy Del Deo; Robinson, Silverman, Pearce, Aronsohn & Berman; Buchanan Ingersoll, P.C.;Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Schwartz, Kelm, Warren & Ramirez; Porter & Hedges, L.L.P.;MicroProbe Corp.; NeoRX Corp.; Solomon, Zauderer, Ellenhorn, Frischer & Sharp;
Caushon v. General Motors Corp. - In re Automobile Antitrust Cases
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
San Diego Superior Court, coordinated in San FranciscoNature of Case: Unfair Competition; AntitrustPlaintiff's Co-Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Dibella v. Olympic Financial - SettledU.S. District Court, District of MinnesotaNature of Case: Securities FraudPlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Ferrari v. Read-Rite - SettledU. S. District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNature of Case: Securities FraudPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach
Hart v. United States Tobacco Co. - SettledLos Angeles Superior Court Coordinated in Smokeless Tobacco LitigationNature of Case: Unfair Competition; AntitrustPlaintiff’s Co-Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; the Cuneo Law Group P.C.; Gordon Ball
In re Bank of America Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation - In LitigationU.S. District Court, District of Kansas, Case No. MDL 2138Nature of Case: Employment Claims under FLSA and California Labor CodePlaintiff’s Co-Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Marlin & Saltzman; Stueve SiegelHanson; United Employees Law Group
Jordan/Ramos v. DMV - Judgment for PlaintiffSuperior Court, SacramentoNature of Case: Commerce Clause Violation - Tax declared unconstitutional -Affirmed on appealPlaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach; Weiss & Yourman; Sullivan Hill.
Kensington Capital v. Oakley - SettledU. S. District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaNature of Case: Securities FraudPlaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach
Kensington Capital v. Vesta - SettledU. S. District Court, Northern District of AlabamaNature of Case: Securities FraudPlaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach
Manaster v. SureBeam - SettledUnited States District CourtNature of Case: Violation of Securities ActPlaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
Ridgewood Capital Management v. Gensia - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District of California, #CV-92-1500H
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Barrack, Rodos & Bacine; Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox; Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf& Jones; Law Offices of Joseph H. Weiss; Kaufman, Malchman, Kaufman & Kirby; Sullivan Hill;Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Shurman v. Scimed - SettledState of Minnesota District Court, Fourth District, #94-17640Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach; Kaplan,Kilsheimer & Fox; Sullivan Hill; Law Offices of Lawrence G. Soicher.
Sirota v. Swing-N-Slide - SettledWisconsin District Court, County of Rock WisconsinNature of Case: Fraudulent Stock Buy-Back-Derivative ClaimPlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Sullivan Hill; Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach; Nowlan & Mouat
Slatton v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services - SettledCamden County Superior Court, New Jersey, #CAML0256198Nature of Case: Forced order insurancePlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Somkin v. Molten Metal - SettledU.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, #9710325PBSNature of Case: Securities FraudPlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Sparks v AT&T - Settled Illinois District Court - Madison CountyDeceptive Practice claim - Leased consumer telephone equipmentPlaintiff’s counsel - Carr Korein Tillery; Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Whatley Drake
E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947
top related