Declaration in Support of Preliminary Approval in Class Action Against 8x8 for California Wage and Hour Laws

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


-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


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-

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


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-

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


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-

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


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-

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


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-

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.


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-

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


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-

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


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


-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


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


-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


DECLARATION OF KYLE NORDREHAUG

EXHIBIT #1





































-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]


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



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


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 -


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,


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 -


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


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 -


2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com Email: [email protected]

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


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 -


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


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 -


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.


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 -


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


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 -


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


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 -


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


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 -


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.



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]


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


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


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.



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]


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




))))))))))))

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


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


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,


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


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.


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


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



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]


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





))))))))))))

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


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


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


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


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


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


$5,000.00 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.


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 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: ________________ __________________________________________




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]


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



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.


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: ________________ ________________________________________________


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




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


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


DECLARATION OF KYLE NORDREHAUG

EXHIBIT #2


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Declaration in Support of Preliminary Approval in Class Action Against 8x8 for California Wage and Hour Laws

Documents

settlement class members

fairness of settlement

settlement negotiations

settlement share

class period

settlement agreement

class counsel

putative class