meierdiercksdecofkylereattyfee

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 NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES

AND LITIGATION EXPENSES-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 KYLENORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYFEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

Date: October 28, 2011Time: 9:00 a.m.

Dept.: 1Judge: Hon. James P. Kleinberg

[Complaint Filed: January 27, 2010]

E-FILEDJul 14, 2011 5:00 PM

David H. YamasakiChief Executive Officer/Clerk

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa ClaraCase #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-33446

By G. Duarte, 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

DECLARATION OF KYLE NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEESAND LITIGATION EXPENSES

-2-

I, Kyle Nordrehaug, declare as follows:

1. I am a partner in the law firm of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhomwik, counsel of

record for Plaintiff and the Class in this matter. As such, I am fully familiar with the facts,

pleadings and history of this matter. I am submitting this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s

motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses in connection with services rendered

in the above-entitled action and the requested service award. The following facts are within my

own personal knowledge, and if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the

matters stated herein.

2. Over the course of the litigation during the last year, a number of attorneys in my

firm have worked on this matter. Their credentials are reflected in the Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &

Bhowmik firm resume, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit #1. Some of

the major cases our firm has undertaken are also set forth in Exhibit #1. The bulk of the attorneys

involved in this matter at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik have had extensive class litigation

experience, much of it in the area of consumer class actions, employment class actions, securities

litigation, unfair business practices and other complex litigation. The attorneys at my firm have

extensive experience in class cases involving labor code violations and overtime claims. Class

Counsel has litigated similar overtime cases against other employers on behalf of employees,

including cases against Apple, Sun Microsystems, Kaiser, and California State Automobile

Association. It is this level of experience which enabled the firm to undertake the instant matter

and to successfully combat the resources of the defendants and their capable and experienced

counsel. On account of the concerted and dedicated effort this case demanded in order to properly

handle and prosecute, Class Counsel were precluded from taking other cases, and in fact, had to

turn away other potential fee generating cases.

The Attorneys’ Fees Requested Are Fair and Reasonable and Should Be Approved

3. The Agreement For The Payment of Fees and Expenses Should Is Appropriate

And Should Be Enforced

E-FILED: Jul 14, 2011 5:00 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-33446

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-

(a) As part of the settlement, As part of the settlement, the parties agreed to an award of

attorneys’ fees and costs equal to 25% of the Settlement Total ($625,000), which is equal to

$156,250. (See Settlement (Agreement at §III(B)-(C), attached as an exhibit to the Motion for

Final Approval.) Class Counsel respectfully applies to the Court for approval of the agreed

attorneys’ fee award equal to 25% of the Settlement Total.

(b) Here, informed arms-length bargaining between experienced counsel for the Class and

Defendant was clearly adversarial and arms length as the settlement was the result of formal

mediation and continued informal negotiations. Such bargaining is obviously the best measure of

the market for fees. The requested fee and cost award was bargained for during adversarial

negotiations between counsel for each of the parties, after the substantive terms of the settlement

had been agreed to. The requested fee and cost award was a product of arms-length negotiations

and fairly reflects the marketplace value of the services rendered by Class Counsel in this case.

(c) The requested fee award, agreed to by the parties as part of the Settlement, should be

approved. The requested fee award was bargained for during arms’ length adversarial bargaining

by counsel for each of the parties as part of the settlement, and is substantially less than sums

awarded in comparable litigation.

4. Class Counsel's Fee Award Is Properly Calculated as a Percentage of the Total Value

Created for the Benefit of the Class

(a) After over a year of contentious litigation, Class Counsel successfully negotiated a class

action settlement which provides for a common fund settlement to paid to the Settlement Class in

the amount of Six Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($625,000.00) (the “Settlement Total”)

on a non-reversionary basis. As part of the settlement, the parties agreed to an award of attorneys’

fees equal to 25% of the Settlement Total. (Settlement Agreement at § III(B).) The Settlement

also provides that Class Counsel may recover their incurred litigation expenses up to $25,000.

(Settlement Agreement at § III(B).) Defendant has agreed to the payment of service awards to the

Plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 each. (Settlement Agreement at § III(B).)

(b) In this case, the fees are being paid from the common fund, accordingly, the fee should


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 As Lealao notes, in the context of a common fund settlement, the California SupremeCourt has never prohibited the use of a percentage of the fund to award fees. 82 Cal.App. 4that 49. In fact, the California Supreme Court has urged trial courts to follow class action federalauthority. Green v. Obledo, 29 Cal. 3d 126, 146 (1981); Vasquez v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.3d 800,821 (1971).


-4-

be awarded to mimic fees freely negotiated in the legal marketplace for comparable common fund

cases under Lealao. As Lealao acknowledged, in cases like this one, the percentage-of-the-benefit

approach should be considered because it “it better approximates the workings of the marketplace

than the lodestar approach.” 82 Cal.App. 4th at 49. In Consumer Privacy Cases, 175 Cal. App. 4th

545, 557-8 (2009), the Court of Appeal recently acknowledged that under California law, a

percentage of the fund method may be used in a common fund case. 175 Cal. App. 4th at 557-8.

Because this is a common fund case, and the percentage of the fund is the comparable marketplace

for fee awards in common fund cases, Lealao and Consumer Privacy support an award based upon

the percentage of the common fund.1 Here, 25% is the benchmark and the low end of comparable

awards for common fund cases, which establishes the requested award as reasonable.

(c) In defining a reasonable fee, the Court should mimic the marketplace for cases involving

a significant contingent risk such as this one. Our legal system places unique reliance on private

litigants to enforce substantive provisions of employment law through class actions. Therefore,

attorneys providing these substantial benefits should be paid an award equal to the amount

negotiated in private bargaining that takes place in the legal market place.

(d) There is a substantial difference between the risk assumed by attorneys being paid by

the hour and attorneys working on a contingent fee basis. The attorney being paid by the hour can

go to the bank with his fee. The attorney working on a contingent basis can only log hours while

working without pay towards a result that will hopefully entitle him to a market place contingent

fee taking into account the risk and other factors of the undertaking. Otherwise, the contingent fee

attorney receives nothing. In this case, Class Counsel subjected themselves to this contingent fee

market risk in this all or nothing contingent fee case wherein the necessity and financial burden of

private enforcement makes the requested award appropriate. The contingent fee practices of 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


-5-

Counsel do not accommodate the investment of unnecessary time in a case. This case was litigated

on a contingent basis with all of the concomitant risk factors inherent in such an uncertain

undertaking.

(e) Here, the contingent nature of the fee award, both from the point of view of eventual

settlement and the point of view of establishing eligibility for an award, also warrant the requested

fee award. A number of difficult issues, the adverse resolution of any one of which could have

doomed the successful prosecution of the action, were present here. As discussed above, attorneys’

fees in this case were not only contingent but extremely risky, with a very real chance that Class

Counsel would receive nothing at all for their efforts, having devoted time and advanced costs.

Class Counsel has previously invested in cases which resulted in no recovery.

(f) At the time this case was brought, the result was far from certain. Defendant’s practice at

issue here had been in place for years. Defendant’s numerous defenses to the merits of the case and

to class certification created difficulties with proof and complex legal issues for Class Counsel to

overcome. For example, were the Class members subject to the commission sales exemption in the

Wage Order? Were the Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ claims barred from recovery by the

“administrative exemption”as was held in Kennedy v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 410 F.3d 365,

373-74 (7th Cir. 2005)? Could Plaintiffs establish the individual damages of the absent Class

Members? All of these were very substantial risks any of which could have resulted in the Class

receiving nothing if the claims were litigated.

(g) Finally, would Plaintiffs be able to obtain class certification and thereby recover on

behalf of all employees at all banking locations? Dunbar, supra, 141 Cal. App. 4th at 1431-32,

affirmed an order denying class certification to a class of employees who claimed that they were

denied overtime pay holding that the issue of whether an exemption applied would have to be

individually determined for each class member, which meant that common issues did not

predominate. In particular, the Dunbar decision relied on the significant variation from store to

store, which is the exact argument advanced by Defendant in this case. See also Morisky, supra,.

111 F. Supp. 2d at 498. (application of overtime exemption depended on individual issues that


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-

barred certification); Walsh, supra, 148 Cal. App. 4th 1440 (upholding the decertification of an

overtime class action). Here, Defendant had stated that class certification would be vigorously

opposed, and there was certainly a risk that class certification would have been denied.

(h) The Settlement was possible only because Class Counsel was able to convince

Defendant that Plaintiff could potentially prevail on the difficult legal issues regarding overtime

compensation, maintain class certification through trial, overcome difficulties in proof as to

monetary relief and take the case to trial if need be, as exemplified by the foregoing. In

successfully navigating these hurdles Class Counsel displayed the necessary dual skill set. The high

quality of the Class Counsel’s work in this case was mandated by the very vigorous and

experienced defense presented by counsel for Defendant. Class Counsel was required to invest

substantial time and resources in investigation, litigation, discovery and determination of potential

damages and communicating with and responding to opposing counsel’s and class members’

requests and inquiries.

(i) Class Counsel’s skill in presenting this case to overcome the difficulties that prevented

recovery in many other overtime wage cases is also compelling given the exceptional and well

recognized quality of Defendant’s Counsel from the respected, capable, and well-staffed law firm of

Simpson, Garrity, Innes & Jacuzzi. To represent the Class on a contingent fee basis, Class Counsel

had to forego compensable hourly work on other cases to devote the necessary time and resources

to this contingent case. In so doing, Class Counsel gave up the hourly work that a firm can bank on

for the risky contingent fee work in this case which could have paid Class Counsel nothing.

(j) Class Counsel were required to advance all costs in this litigation. Especially in this

type of litigation where the corporate defendants and their attorneys are well funded, this can prove

to be very expensive and risky. Accordingly, because the risk of advancing costs in this type of

litigation can be significant, it is therefore cost prohibitive to many attorneys. The financial burdens

undertaken by Plaintiffs and Class Counsel in prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class were

very substantial. To date, Class Counsel advanced more than $28,000 in costs which could not

have been recovered if this case had been lost. Plaintiffs undertook the risk of liability for


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-

Defendant’s costs and even fees had this case not succeeded, as well as other potential negative

financial ramifications from having come forward to sue Defendant on behalf of the Class.

(k) In a common fund settlement “[t]he lodestar method is merely a cross-check on the

reasonableness of a percentage figure”. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1050, n.5 (9th

Cir. 2002). In this case, the reasonableness of the requested attorneys’ fee of 25% equal to

$156,250 is also established by reference to Class Counsel’s lodestar in this matter. The

contemporaneous billing records for Class Counsel evidence that as of July 13, 2011, Class

Counsel’s lodestar is $216,583.50. The requested fee award is therefore significantly less than

Class Counsel’s lodestar, and represents a 0.72 negative multiplier. As a result, this Court should

have no trouble concluding that an award which represents an amount less that Class Counsel’s

overall lodestar is fair and reasonable and is justified under California law.

(l) Counsel retained on a contingency fee basis, whether in private matters or in

representative litigation of this sort, is entitled to a premium beyond his standard, hourly, non-

contingent fee schedule in order to compensate for both the risks and the delay in payment for the

simple fact that despite the most vigorous and competent of efforts, success is never guaranteed.

Indeed, if counsel is not adequately compensated for the risks inherent in difficult class actions,

competent attorneys will be discouraged from prosecuting similar cases.

5. Some of the class action awards obtained by Class Counsel herein in similar

overtime employment actions throughout the state bear out the reasonableness of a fee and costs

award equivalent to 25% of the total settlement value: On February 2, 2009, in Louie v. Kaiser

Foundation Health Plan, (U.S.D.C. Southern District of California), the Honorable Irma E.

Gonzalez, Chief Judge, awarded a 25% fee request to Class Counsel in an overtime class action.

Louie v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78314 (S.D. Cal. 2009) (Holding

that “[i]n wage and hour cases “[t]wenty-five percent is considered a benchmark for attorneys' fees

in common fund cases.”) On December 11, 2008, in Gruender et al. v. First American Title,

(Orange County Superior Court), the Honorable David C. Velasquez awarded a 25% fee request to

Class Counsel in an overtime class action. On November 12, 2008, in Connell v. Sun Microsystems


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-

(Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG06252310), the Honorable Steven Brick awarded a

30% fee request to Class Counsel in an overtime class action. On October 27, 2010, in Lane v.

Stewart Title Co. (Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 07 CE CG 01735 AMC), the Honorable

Jeffrey Hamilton, Jr. awarded a 30% fee request to Class Counsel in an overtime class action. On

December 1, 2010, in Behar v. Union Bank (Orange County Superior Court Case No.

30-2009-00317275), the Honorable Nancy Wieben Stock approved a 25% fee request to Class

Counsel in an overtime class action.

6. As of April 18, 2011, Class Counsel’s incurred lodestar is $216,583.50 in this matter.

I have reviewed my firm’s lodestar in this matter and believe the charges are reasonable and were

reasonably necessary to the conduct of the case. These rates are in line with the prevailing rates of

attorneys in the local legal community for similar work and, if this were a commercial matter, these

are the charges that would be made and presented to the client. This firm has worked more than

517 hours prosecuting this case with hourly fees ranging from $175 to $575 from December 16,

2009 through July 13, 2011, for a Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik lodestar equaling

$216,583.50. A detailed breakdown of the total fees for services by the firm rendered is attached

hereto as Exhibit #2. In addition, Class Counsel will be performing additional work that is not

included in this lodestar amount, including preparing the motion for final approval attending the

hearing on final approval and finalizing the orders and judgment. As a result, the current lodestar

amount understates the total attorneys’ fees ultimately incurred in this action. Therefore, the

requested fee award as a percentage of the fund is equal to less that the overall lodestar incurred in

this case to date (a negative multiplier). The requested award is therefore reasonable using the

lodestar as a cross-check.

7. As part of the agreement, the parties agreed that Class Counsel shall be entitled to

recover “an amount not more than $25,000 as their Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment”

(Settlement Agreement at § III(B)(2).) Class Counsel requests reimbursement for litigation

expenses and costs in the amount of $25,000 based upon counsel’s billing records, which evidence

that counsel incurred litigation expenses of $28,028.70. These expenses include the expenses


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-

incurred for court filing fees, expert witness and mediator fees, claims administrator fees, copying,

legal research charges, deposition, court travel expenses and delivery charges, all of which are costs

normally billed to and paid by the client. The details of the litigation costs incurred are set forth in

Class Counsel’s contemporaneous billing records attached hereto as Exhibit #2. These costs were

reasonably incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

8. I respectfully request that for their service as the class representatives, the named

Plaintiffs Nikki Meierdiercks, Karin Flavetta and Frank Torres should each be awarded $5,000 as a

service award in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. (Settlement Agreement at § III(B)(1).)

Defendant has agreed to the payment of this service award to the Plaintiff. As the representatives

of the Class, Plaintiffs performed their duty to the Class admirably and without exception.

Plaintiffs provided valuable documents and information from their employment at Defendant which

were instrumental in Class Counsels’ understanding of the case. Plaintiffs appeared for an all day

deposition and responded to significant discovery. Plaintiffs also responded to numerous requests

and correspondence from Class Counsel, providing invaluable assistance and information which

ultimately resulted in the Settlement now benefitting the Class. The Plaintiffs also assumed the risk

that their might possibly be liable for costs incurred in connection with this case and being

“blacklisted” by other future employers. Finally, the work of the Plaintiffs also resulted in a change

in the Defendant’s practices in the future, which is yet another benefit to members of the Class.

Without the Plaintiffs’ support, cooperation and information, no other fellow employees would be

receiving any benefit.

9. As a result, Class Counsel respectfully requests the Court approve the award of

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $156,250 equal to 25% of the common fund, payment of litigation

expenses in the amount of $25,000, and payment of a service award to the Plaintiffs in the amount

of Class Representative of $5,000 each, all in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

10. Preliminary approval of the Settlement was granted on June 17, 2011. The Court

approved notice will be mailed to the members of the Class. Plaintiffs are submitting this motion in

advance of the notice mailing so that Class members may view the motion in advance 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


-10-

objection deadline in accordance with Mercury Interactive Corp. Secs. Litig. v. Mercury Interactive

Corp., 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir 2010), and therefore the reaction of the Class is not known at this time.

Plaintiffs will provide a supplement after the notice period to address this issue and the reaction of

the class.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing

is true and correct. Executed this 14th day of July, 2011 at San Diego, California.

/s/ Kyle Nordrehaug Kyle Nordrehaug


EXHIBIT #1


Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik 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 Actions; Wage and Hour Class ActionsAdmitted: 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


Piya MukherjeeAssociate AttorneyPractice Areas: Civil Litigation; Wage and Hour Class ActionsAdmitted: 2010, CaliforniaEducated: University of California, San Diego (B.S. 2006); University of Southern California,Gould School of Law (J.D. 2010)

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); Keshishzadeh v. Arthur J. Gallagher Serv. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 116380 (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); In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., 629 F.3d 333 (3rd. Cir. 2010);Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 160 Cal. App. 4th 638 (2008); Rezec v. Sony PicturesEntertainment, Inc., 116 Cal. App. 4th 135 (2004); Badillo v. Am. Tobacco Co., 202 F.R.D. 261 (D.Nev. 2001); La Jolla Friends of the Seals v. Nat’l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin., 2010 U.S. App.Lexis 23025 (9th Cir. 2010); Dirienzo v. Dunbar Armored, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 36650 (S.D.Cal. 2011); Rix v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist Lexis 25422 (S.D. Cal. 2011); Weitzkev. Costar Realty Info., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist Lexis 20605 (S.D. Cal. 2011); Goodman v. PlatinumCondo. Dev., LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36044 (D. Nev. 2011); Sussex v. Turnberry/MGM GrandTowers, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14502 (D. Nev 2011); Smith v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals,Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 117869 (S.D. Cal. 2010).

LEAD COUNSEL - CLASS ACTION

Aburto v. Verizon - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 11-cv-0088Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification; Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug

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, Central 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 - SettledSan 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

Aquino v. Macy’s West Stores - In LitigationOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2010-00395420Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Wage and Hour ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

Barcia v. Contain-A-Way - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case 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. 30-2009-00317275


Nature 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

Bethley v. Raytheon Company - In LitigationUnited States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. SACV10-01741Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification; Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

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 - SettledU.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.

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 - Settled


San Diego Superior Court, Case No. GIC 853562Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices - Deceptive Advertising - Made in the USA violationsPlaintiff’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 - SettledSan 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, Case 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 PreemptionSan 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

Day v. WDC Exploration - In LitigationOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2010-00433770Nature of Case: Wage and Hour ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

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 California, Case No. SA CV 05-1031Nature of Case: Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Wynne Law Firm; Thierman Law Firm P.C.


Diesel v. Wells Fargo Bank - In LitigationOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2011-00441368Nature of Case: Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

Dirienzo v. Dunbar Armored - SettledU.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 CommissionNature of Case: Illegal ChargePlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Sullivan Hill

Drumheller v. Radioshack Corporation - In LitigationUnited States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. SACV11-355Nature of Case: Wage and Hour ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

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 - Settled U.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. Diebold- In LitigationU.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 - Settled


Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC345147Nature of Case: Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; United Employees Law Group

Frudakis v. Merck Sharp & Dohme - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Central District California, Case No. SACV 11-00146Nature of Case: Pharmaceutical Sales Representative Misclassification, OvertimePlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

Gabisan v. Pelican Products - SettledU.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08 cv 1361Nature of Case: Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; United Employees Law Group

Gibson v. World Savings - Judgment for Class after Appeal - SettledOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 762321Nature 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

Gomez v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 3:10-cv-02373Nature of Case: Wage and Hour ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

Gordon v. Wells Fargo Bank - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 3:11-cv-00090Nature of Case: Wage and Hour ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

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

Grabowski v. CH Robinson - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 10-cv-1658Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification; Overtime, Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

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 00197


Nature 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

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

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

Henshaw v. Home Depot U.S.A. - In LitigationUnited States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. SACV10-01392Nature of Case: Failure to Pay Earned Vacation; Violation of Labor Code 227.3Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

Olayhon v. Hertz - In LitigationUnited States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 11-1662Nature of Case: Wage and Hour ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

Hibler v. Coca Cola Bottling - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 11cv0298 Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification,Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

Higgins v. Maryland Casualty - SettledSan Diego County 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

Jacobs v. Nu Horizons - In LitigationSanta Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 111cv194797Nature of Case: Wage and Hour ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

Jefferson v. Bottling Group LLC (Pepsi) - Class Certification Granted, In Litigation


Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00180102Nature of Case: Supervisor Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiffs’ 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, SettledU.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.) - SettledU.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, Central District California, Case No. SACV 10-00374Nature 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

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 Violations


Plaintiff’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 DrugsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug

Meierdiercks v. 8x8, Inc. - SettledSanta 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

Najarian v. Macy’s West Stores - In LitigationOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2010-00418401Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Wage and Hour ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

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 00116


Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices - Force Ordered Insurance OverchargesPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug

Ochoa v. Eisai, Inc. - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Northern District California, Case No. 3:11-cv-01349Nature of Case: Pharmaceutical Sales Representative Misclassification, OvertimePlaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

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

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

Perry v. AT&T - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Northern District California, Case No. 11-cv 01488Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group

Picus v. Wal-Mart Stores - SettledU.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

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


Postema v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. - In LitigationOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2010-00418901Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Pettersen & Bark

Pratt v. Verizon - In LitigationOrange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2010-00430447Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

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

Ralphs v. Blockbuster, Inc. – SettledSan Diego Superior CourtNature of Case: Unlawful Late FeesPlaintiff’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, SettledSan 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. - Reversed 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


Roeh v. JK Hill - In LitigationSan Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2011-00089046Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

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) - SettledOrange 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 - SettledU.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

Schuler v. Ecolab, Inc. - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 3:10-cv-02255Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations, Expense ReimbursementPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

Schulz v. Qualxserv, LLC / Worldwide Techservices - In LitigationU.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; Krutcik& Georggin; United EmployeesLaw 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

Shrivastara v. Fry’s Electonics - In LitigationSanta Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 111cv192189Nature of Case: Failure to Pay Earned Vacation; Violation of Labor Code 227.3


Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

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, FLSAPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group

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. - Settled


Orange 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 CourtNature of Case: Unfair Business Practice - Employment Practices, Violation of Labor Code 450Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug

Trujillo v. LivHome - SettledOrange 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

Valadez v. Schering-Plough - In LitigationU.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 10-CV-2595Nature of Case: Pharmaceutical Sales Representative Misclassification, OvertimePlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik

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

Yam v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals - SettledU.S. District Court, Northern District California, Case No. 10-cv-05225-SBANature of Case: Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code ViolationsPlaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group

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 CasesSan 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 Plaintiff, Affirmed on appealSuperior Court, SacramentoNature of Case: Commerce Clause Violation - Tax declared unconstitutional -Plaintiffs’ 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-92-1500HPlaintiffs’ 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


EXHIBIT #2





















meierdiercksdecofkylereattyfee

Documents

nordrehaug state bar

blumenthal state bar

class cases

nordrehaug bhomwik

nordrehaug bhowmik firm

nordrehaug bhowmik norman

state of california

law firm of blumenthal