Walsh v. Apple, Inc. et al

Filing 40

MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval for Class Settlement filed by David Kalua, David Walsh. Motion Hearing set for 2/26/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval, # 2 Declaration of Norman B. Blumenthal in support of Motion for Preliminary Approval, # 3 Certificate of Service, # 4 Proposed Order)(Blumenthal, Norman) (Filed on 1/21/2010)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687)
[e-mail]
Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975)
[e-mail]
Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066)
[e-mail]
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10

UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
Walter Haines, Esq. (CSB #71075)
[e-mail]
65 Pine Ave, #312
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

11

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8
9

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN JOSE DIVISION

16
17
18

DAVID WALSH, an individual, DAVID
KALUA, an individual, on behalf of
themselves, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated,

19

Plaintiffs,

20

APPLE, INC.,

DECLARATION OF NORMAN B.
BLUMENTHAL IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

vs.

21

CASE NO. 05:08-cv-04918 JF
(Class Action)

22

Judge: Hon. Jeremy Fogel
Court: Dept. 3

Defendants.

23

Hearing Date: February 26, 2010
Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.

24

Action Filed: August 4, 2008

25
26
27
28

1
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Case No.: 05:08-cv-04918 JF

1
2

I, NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL, declare as follows:
1.

I am a partner in the law firm of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik counsel of

3

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

4

facts, pleadings and history of this matter. The following facts are within my own personal

5

knowledge, and if called as a witness, I could testify competently to the matters stated herein.

6

2.

This declaration is being submitted in support of plaintiff’s Motion For an Order

7

(1) Preliminarily Approving Settlement of Plaintiffs’ Claims; (2) Scheduling Final Settlement

8

Hearing; and, (3) Directing that Notice be sent to Class Members. Lodged herewith as Exhibit 1 is

9

a copy of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) along with exhibits thereto.

10
11

Fairness of Settlement

12

3.

Under the terms to which the Parties have agreed, Apple will make a payment no

13

more than Nine Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars ($990,000.00). The settlement will be made on

14

a claims-made basis without a reversion to Apple except for payment of taxes. Decl. Blumenthal, ¶

15

3. This sum is inclusive of all claims of the Settlement Class members, as well as Class Counsel’s

16

attorneys’ fees and costs, incentive awards for the Class Representatives, PAGA payments, and the

17

cost of class notice and claims administration.

18

4.

The Agreement provides for a claims process to make payments on each timely and

19

valid claim submitted. All Class Members will receive an opportunity to participate in and receive

20

payment.

21

5.

The Parties engaged in private mediation before the respected Mediator of

22

employment class actions, Mark Rudy, to try and resolve the claims alleged in the Action. The

23

Parties attended the mediation on April 27, 2009, but the Parties were not able to reach settlement at

24

the mediation. Following the exchange of additional information and subsequent discussions and

25

negotiations, the Parties thereafter reached this Agreement. The parties prepared for the mediation

26

by exchanging payroll data, calculating damages and submitting mediation briefs to Mr. Rudy.

27
28

1
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Case No.: 05:08-cv-04918 JF

1

Subsequent discovery was conducted by both parties, including multiple sets of production

2

requests, interrogatories and admission requests. As a result of the mediation process, the parties

3

ultimately reached a settlement that they believe to be fair and reasonable in light of the experience

4

of the Parties’ attorneys as Counsel in other wage and hour cases, and the uncertainties and cost of

5

the years of litigation the Parties faced if the settlement was not reached. This is a excellent result

6

for the members of the Settlement Class. Liability in this case was uncertain because some or all of

7

the Class Members may have been exempt from certain pay requirements applicable to nonexempt

8

employees. Indeed, some courts have found exemptions to apply in cases involving similar facts.

9

6.

The damage estimate calculations to compensate for the amount due for the

10

nonpayment of wages were calculated by DM&A, Plaintiffs’ damage expert. For the Class

11

Members whose claims are at issue here, DM&A reviewed Apple’s time and payroll data and

12

assumed that each employee was not paid for five (5) overtime hours for each week worked during

13

the Class period and missed one meal break per work week. Plaintiffs’ expert then calculated the

14

compensation owed to the members of the class and found that Apple was subject to a Class-wide

15

claim of $2,901,942 for the 5 unpaid hours of overtime. Once estimates for meal break

16

compensation, wage statement penalties, waiting time penalties and other statutory penalties are

17

included, the total damage estimates were $3.6 million. Consequently, Plaintiffs reasonably

18

believed that Apple was subject to total claims of about $3.6 million for the entire Class Period for

19

unpaid overtime and penalties that was susceptible to solid proof. The settlement of $990,000,

20

before deductions, represents 27% of the total possible claims, assuming these amounts could be

21

proven at trial, and represents 34% of the total overtime estimate. Clearly the goal of this litigation

22

has been met.

23
24

Procedural History of the Litigation

25

7.

26

On August 4, 2008, Plaintiff David Walsh filed a complaint in the Southern District

of California on behalf of a putative class of “Network Engineers” who worked for Apple by

27
28

2
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Case No.: 05:08-cv-04918 JF

1

physically installing, physically configuring, and physically replacing and maintaining network

2

equipment. [Doc. No. 1]. The central allegation of the Action was that these employees were

3

misclassified as exempt. On September 9, 2008, Plaintiff Walsh filed a First Amended Complaint.

4

[Doc. No. 5]. Apple filed a motion to strike and for a more definite statement on September 23,

5

2008. [Doc. No. 6]. Apple also filed a motion to change the venue of the Action. [Doc. No. 7].

6

Upon joint motion of the Parties, on October 24, 2008, the Action was transferred to the United

7

States District Court for the Northern District of California. [Doc. No. 12].

8
9

8.

To address some of the issues raised by the motions filed by Apple, Plaintiffs filed a

Second Amended Complaint on December 30, 2008, which in part added David Kalua as a Named

10

Plaintiff and revised the class allegations to include employees in the positions “Systems

11

Engineers,” “Data Center Systems Engineers,” “WAN Network / Voice Engineers,”

12

“Network Engineers,” “Retail Engineers,” and “Information Systems Analyst,” who worked

13

within the Global Network and Computing Services Group ("GNCS") and the Information

14

Systems & Technology Group ("IS&T") at Apple. [Doc. No. 16]. On January 29, 2009,

15

Apple filed a motion to strike and for a more definite statement with respect to the Second

16

Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 17]. Plaintiffs prepared and filed opposition to the motions

17

by Apple on February 23, 2009. [Doc. No. 19]. The Parties appeared before this Court and

18

argued the motions. On March 23, 2009, this Court granted the motions in part and denied

19

the motions in part. [Doc. No. 21].

20

9.

In accordance with the Order of this Court, Plaintiffs filed their Third

21

Amended Complaint on May 1, 2009. [Doc. No. 31]. Apple answered the Third Amended

22

Complaint on May 18, 2009. [Doc. No. 35]. Litigation of the Action ensued. The Parties

23

prepared a discovery plan and both Parties propounded substantial written discovery. The

24

depositions of David Walsh was taken. The Parties were completing the necessary

25

discovery for class certification, when the Parties agreed to stay formal discovery and

26

resume their settlement discussions.

27
28

3
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Case No.: 05:08-cv-04918 JF

1

10.

Apple provided Plaintiffs with the payroll data, employment information , policies

2

and procedures, job descriptions, performance reviews and other data and which Plaintiff required

3

for mediation. After initial exchanges of information, the Parties mediated on April 27, 2009 before

4

respected mediator, Mark Rudy. The Parties were not able to reach settlement at the mediation

5

session, however, discussions continued in the following motions. Ultimately, these subsequent

6

discussions and negotiations were successful, and the Parties reached this Agreement.

7

11.

Although a settlement has been reached and Apple is not opposing the motion for

8

preliminary approval, Apple denies any and all liability or wrongdoing of any kind associated with

9

the claims alleged in the Complaint. Apple maintains, among other things, that they have complied

10

at all times with the California Labor Code, that the members of the putative class are properly

11

classified as exempt under California law and that all members of the putative class were properly

12

paid all wages owed to them. Specifically, in Apple’s view, the Class Members are properly

13

classified as exempt because they spend the majority of their time engaged in work directly related

14

to the general business operations of Apple and were, therefore, covered under the administrative

15

exemption. Apple also maintains that some Class Members were exempt under the executive and

16

professional exemptions.

17

12.

Plaintiffs contend that Apple violated California wage and hour laws and the FLSA,

18

and that the Action is appropriate for class certification on the basis that the Plaintiffs’ claims meet

19

the requisites for class certification. Without admitting that class certification is proper, Apple has

20

stipulated that a Class of individuals employed by Apple in a Class Position in California during the

21

respective settlement subclass class periods may be certified for settlement purposes only. The

22

Parties agree that certification for settlement purposes is not an admission that class certification

23

would be proper if the class certification issue were litigated. Further, this agreement is not

24

admissible in this or any other proceeding as evidence that the Class could be certified absent a

25

settlement. Solely for purposes of settling the lawsuits, the Parties stipulate and agree that the

26

requisites for establishing class certification with respect to the Class, as defined above, have been

27
28

4
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Case No.: 05:08-cv-04918 JF

1

met and are met.

2

13.

Class Counsel has conducted a thorough investigation into the facts of the class

3

action. Class Counsel has diligently evaluated the Class Members’ claims against Apple. Prior to

4

the Parties executing the Agreement, Apple provided Class Counsel with access to Class Member

5

data, including data reflecting the weeks worked by the Class Members and relevant salary

6

information for the positions at issue, and contact information for the employees to conduct

7

interviews. Based on the foregoing data and their own independent investigation and evaluation,

8

Class Counsel believes that the settlement with Apple for the consideration and on the terms set

9

forth in this Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and is in the best interest of the Class in

10

light of all known facts and circumstances, including the risk of significant delay, defenses asserted

11

by Apple, and numerous potential appellate issues.

12
13

Plan of Allocation

14

14.

In consideration for settlement of this Action and a release of the claims as described

15
16

in the Agreement, Apple agrees to pay into a Settlement Fund a sum not to exceed Nine Hundred

17

Ninety Thousand Dollars ($ 990,000.00) (“Settlement Fund”). The Settlement Fund in this Action

18

has five components: (1) the Settlement Awards; (2) the Named Plaintiff Awards; (3) the Fee and

19

Costs Payment; (4) the Administration Payment; and (5) the PAGA Payment. The “Net Settlement

20

Sum” is the amount remaining in the Settlement Fund after deductions from the Settlement Fund for

21

Administration Costs, the Fee and Costs Award, the Named Plaintiff Awards, and the PAGA

22

Payment.

23

15.

The Net Settlement Sum shall be paid entirely to Settlement Class Members, except

24

that if there is unclaimed residue it shall first be used to satisfy Defendant's obligations to pay

25

payroll taxes on the Settlement Awards. The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed as follows:

26
27
28

16.

Each Settlement Class Member will be eligible to receive a Settlement Award

pursuant to the following formula: Based on data provided by Defendant, the Settlement
5
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Case No.: 05:08-cv-04918 JF

1

Administrator shall initially calculate the number of weeks (including each partial week as a full

2

week) of employment for each Plaintiff in a Class Position in the Class Period ("Work Weeks").

3

Then, each Subclass One Member's Work Weeks shall be multiplied by 1.0 in recognition of a

4

release of FLSA claims to arrive at that Class Member's "Subclass One Weekly Employment

5

Credits." Each member of Subclass Two shall have his or her Work Weeks multiplied by 2.0 in

6

recognition of a release of California state law claims to arrive at that Class Member's "Subclass

7

Two Weekly Employment Credits." Each Member of Subclass Three shall have his or her Work

8

Weeks multiplied by 2.5 to arrive at that Class Member's "Subclass Three Weekly Employment

9

Credits." The Net Settlement Sum will then be divided by the total number of Weekly Employment

10

Credits (defined as the sum of the Subclass One, Subclass Two, and Subclass Three Weekly

11

Employment Credits) to obtain an amount per Weekly Employment Credit. This amount per

12

Weekly Employment will then be multiplied by the Weekly Employment Credits worked by each

13

respective Class Member to determine the Settlement Award available to each respective

14

Settlement Class Member. In the event that the entire Net Settlement Sum is not claimed by the

15

Settlement Class Members, any unclaimed Settlement Award funds shall be used first to pay any

16

corporate payroll tax obligations, and then the remainder of any such funds shall be distributed pro

17

rata to Settlement Class Members.

18

17.

As per paragraph 64 of the Agreement, Apple and their counsel will not oppose an

19

attorneys’ fees award to Class Counsel of 25% of the Settlement Fund or $247,500 (Two Hundred

20

Forty-Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars) as a Fee and Costs Payment to compensate Class

21

Counsel for all of the work already performed in this case and all of the work remaining to be

22

performed in documenting the Settlement, securing Court approval of the Settlement, making sure

23

that the Settlement is fairly administered and implemented and obtaining dismissal of the actions.

24

The amounts paid in fees and costs shall constitute full satisfaction of any obligation to pay for

25

attorneys’ fees, expenses or costs past, present and future incurred in the Action.

26
27
28

18.

As per paragraph 67 of the Agreement, Class Counsel will request that Class

Representatives Walsh and Kalua each receive an class representative service award of $10,000
6
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Case No.: 05:08-cv-04918 JF

1

(Ten Thousand Dollars) as Named Plaintiff Awards for their service as a Class Representative.

2

These awards will be paid in addition to their individual claims for a share to which they are

3

otherwise entitled through the claims process. Apple will not oppose this request.

4

19.

As per paragraph 71 of the Agreement, a PAGA Payment in the amount of $49,500

5

(Forty-Nine Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars) shall be allocated from the Settlement Fund to

6

pay all applicable penalties under the California Labor Code's Private Attorney General Act of

7

2004, as amended, California Labor Code sections 2699 et. seq. The PAGA Payment shall be paid

8

to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency within 30 days after the Effective

9

Date.

10

20.

As per paragraphs 2 and 52 of the Agreement, the reasonable costs of the Settlement

11

Administrator associated with the administration of this Settlement will be paid from the Settlement

12

Fund. The Parties currently project the Administration Payment to be no more than $10,000 (Ten

13

Thousand Dollars). The Settlement Administrator will be Gilardi & Company LLC.

14
15

Risks of Continued Litigation

16

21.

Plaintiffs and Class Counsel recognize the expense and length of continuing to

17

litigate and trying this Action against Apple through possible appeals which could take several

18

years. Class Counsel has also taken into account the uncertain outcome and risk of litigation,

19

especially in complex actions such as this Action. Class Counsel is also mindful of and recognize

20

the inherent problems of proof under, and alleged defenses to, the claims asserted in the Action.

21

Based upon their evaluation, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel has determined that the settlement set

22

forth in the Agreement is in the best interest of the Class Members.

23
24
25

22.

Here the litigation has been hard-fought with aggressive and capable advocacy on

both sides. Clearly the goal of this litigation, to seek redress for the Class, has been met.
23.

Here, a number of defenses asserted by Apple present serious threats to the claims of

26
27
28

Plaintiffs and the other Class Members. For example Apple contended that many Class Members
7
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Case No.: 05:08-cv-04918 JF

1

were barred from recovery by the “administrative exemption” set forth in 29 C.F.R. Section

2

541.402, which provides:

3
4
5
6
7
8

Computer employees within the scope of [the computer professional exemption] may
also have . . . administrative duties which qualify the employees for exemption under
[the administrative exemption]. For example, systems analysts and computer
programmers generally meet the duties requirement for the administrative exemption
if their primary duty includes work such as planning, scheduling, and coordinating
activities required to develop systems to solve complex business, scientific or
engineering problems of the employer or the employer’s customers.
Apple also relied on 29 C.F.R. § 541.201(a)(b) which provides:

11

Work “directly related to management or general business operations” includes, but is
not limited to, work in functional areas such as tax; finance; accounting; budgeting;
auditing; insurance; quality control; purchasing procurement; advertising; marketing;
research; safety and health; personnel management; human resources; employee
benefits; labor relations; public relations; government relations; computer network,
internet and database administration; legal and regulatory compliance; and similar
activities.

12

These new federal regulations specifically identify work as a project manager as an example of that

13

which qualifies for the administrative exemption. 29 C.F.R. Section 541.203 (c) states: “An

14

employee who leads a team of other employees assigned to complete major projects for the

15

employer . .. generally meets the duties requirements for the administrative exemption, even if the

16

employee does not have direct supervisory responsibility over the other employees on the team.”

9
10

17

24.

In Bagwell v. Florida Broadband, 2005 WL 1962562, (S.D. Fla. 2005), the district

18

court found that a network operation engineer was exempt under both the administrative and the

19

computer professional exemptions to the FLSA. The court found that the administrative exemption

20

applied where plaintiff’s primary duty was developing, improving, and making Florida Broadband’s

21

network system function reliably. Although the plaintiff performed some physical work, the court

22

found that the plaintiff’s primary duty was not manual because the predominance of plaintiff’s

23

duties were problem-solving, office and administrative duties. Id. at 1323-24. In Koppinger v.

24

American Interiors, Inc., 295 F. Supp. 2d 797 (N.D. Ohio 2003), the court granted summary

25

judgment for the employer, finding that the plaintiff who was responsible for maintaining the

26
27
28

8
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Case No.: 05:08-cv-04918 JF

1

company’s computer system qualified for the administrative exemption. Id. at 799.1
25.
Similarly here, Apple would have certainly argued that the Class Members were

2
properly classified as exempt because many similarly skilled technical workers have been found to
3
be properly classified as exempt administrators. While other cases have found that such employees
4
are misclassified as exempt, liability in this action would have been hotly disputed and was by no
5
means a foregone conclusion.
6
26.

There was also a significant risk that, if the Actions were not settled, Plaintiffs would

7
be unable to obtain class certification and thereby not recover on behalf of any Apple employees
8
other than themselves. In Dunbar v. Albertson's, Inc., 141 Cal. App. 4th 1422, 1431-32 (2006), the
9
California Court of Appeal recently affirmed an order denying class certification to a class of
10
employees who claimed that they were denied overtime pay because whether the executive
11
exemption applied would have had to have been individually determined for each class member
12
which meant that common issues did not predominate. Similarly, here Apple would have certainly
13
argued in opposing class certification that individual issues predominated because the applicability
14
of the administrative exemption would have to be separately determined for each Class Member
15
based on their individual experience. While other cases have approved class certification in
16
overtime wage claims, class certification in this action would have been hotly disputed and was by
17
no means a foregone conclusion.
18
27.

Class Counsel has conducted a thorough investigation into the facts of the class

19
action. Class Counsel began investigating the Class Members’ claims before this action was filed.
20
Class Counsel also obtained production of extensive business and payroll records produced through
21
both formal and informal discovery. Class Counsel engaged in an extensive review and analysis of
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

See also Heffelfinger v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46461 (C.D. Cal.
June 6, 2008) (holding that classes of information technology workers were exempt under the
administrative exemption); Hickman v. United States, 10 Cl. Ct. 550, 561 (1986)(holding that
electronics technician and computer equipment analyst were exempt under the administrative
exemption); Shillinglaw v. System Works, Inc., 1993 WL 603289 (N.D. Ga. 1993)(holding that
computer programmer/analyst was an exempt administrative employee); Raper v. State of Iowa,
688 N.W.2d 29, 43 (Iowa 2004).
9
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Case No.: 05:08-cv-04918 JF

1

the relevant documents and data with the assistance of experts. Class Counsel also received contact

2

information for the Class and interviewed potential Class Members. Accordingly, the agreement to

3

settle did not occur until Class Counsel possessed sufficient information to make an informed

4

judgment regarding the likelihood of success on the merits and the results that could be obtained

5

through further litigation.

6

28.

Based on the foregoing data and their own independent investigation and evaluation,

7

Class Counsel is of the opinion that the settlement with Apple for the consideration and on the

8

terms set forth in the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and is in the best interest of the

9

class in light of all known facts and circumstances, including the risk of significant delay, defenses

10

asserted by Apple, and numerous potential appellate issues. Apple and Apple’s counsel also agree

11

that the Agreement is fair and in the best interest of the Class Members. There can be no doubt that

12

Counsel for both parties possessed sufficient information to make an informed judgment regarding

13

the likelihood of success on the merits and the results that could be obtained through further

14

litigation.

15

29.

There is no need for continued litigation simply to reaffirm what is already known

16

by the negotiating parties. The extensive due diligence performed by Class Counsel has not created

17

any doubt concerning the accuracy of the information supplied by Apple. Given the complexities

18

of this case, potential offsets, along with the uncertainties of proof and appeal, the proposed

19

settlement in Plaintiffs’ view is well within the range of possible approval and has no obvious

20

deficiencies.

21

Class Certification

22

30.

The proposed settlements meet all of the requirements for class certification under

23

F.R.C.P. §23(b)(2) as demonstrated below, and therefore, the Court may appropriately approve the

24

Settlement Class as defined in the Agreement. This Court should conditionally certify a settlement

25

class for settlement purposes only that consists of all of Defendant's current and former employees

26

in the IS&T and/or Global Computing Network Services ("GNCS") division in the United States

27

who were classified as exempt holding the job titles of Network Engineer (levels 1 through 3),

28

10
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Case No.: 05:08-cv-04918 JF

1

Telecommunication Engineer (levels 1 through 3), Information Systems Engineer (levels 1 through

2

3), Systems Engineer (levels 1 through 3), Information Systems Analyst (levels 1 through 3),

3

Tech/Info Systems Analyst (levels 1 through 3), or substantially similar job titles at levels 1, 2 and 3

4

who worked at any time from August 4, 2004 through the date of preliminary Court approval of this

5

Settlement. All other employees in all other job titles and job levels within the class definition in

6

the Third Amended Complaint shall be dismissed from the Action without prejudice.

7
8
9

a.

Numerosity - Here, the Settlement Class is composed of over 100 current

and former employees, which is sufficiently numerous.
b.

Commonality - Here, common questions of law and fact, as alleged by the

10

Plaintiffs, are present, specifically the question of whether the GNCS and IS&T Support Staff

11

employees employed by Apple are “exempt.”

12

c.

Typicality - The Plaintiffs, like every other member of the Class, were

13

employed by Apple and classified as “exempt” by Apple. The Plaintiffs performed the same type of

14

computer installation and maintenance work as the members of the Class. The Plaintiffs, like every

15

other member of the Class, claim unpaid overtime wages for work performed in the same job

16

classifications. Thus, the claims of both the Plaintiffs and the Members of the Class arise from the

17

same course of conduct by the Apple, involve the same work performed in connection with the

18

Apple computer systems, and are based on the same legal theories.

19

d.

Adequacy - Plaintiffs are well aware of their duties as representatives of the

20

class and have actively participated in the prosecution of this case to date. They effectively

21

communicated with counsel, providing documents to counsel and participated extensively in

22

discovery and investigation of the Action. Plaintiff Walsh appeared for deposition and testified

23

thoroughly about his claims.

24

e.

Predominance - Here, the adjudication of the common issues surrounding

25

Apple’s alleged uniform and systematic acts could establish Apple’s liability on a class-wide basis.

26

Plaintiffs contend that Apple had engaged in a uniform course of conduct with respect to the

27

Settlement Class; the only question is whether Apple’s conduct supports a meritorious claim. Such

28

11
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Case No.: 05:08-cv-04918 JF

1

suits challenging the legality of a standardized course of conduct are generally appropriate for

2

resolution by means of a class action.

3

31.

Class Counsel is experienced in prosecuting class action lawsuits and can

4

competently represent the Class. For example, other lawyers at my firm and I have extensive class

5

litigation experience. We have handled a number of class actions and complex commercial cases

6

and have acted both as counsel and as lead and co-lead counsel in a variety of these matters. We

7

have successfully prosecuted and obtained significant recoveries in numerous class action lawsuits

8

and other lawsuits involving complex issues of law and fact. Class Counsel has been involved as

9

class counsel in over two hundred (200) class action matters. A true and correct copy of the resume

10
11
12

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 21st day of January, 2010, at La Jolla, California.

13
14

By:

s/Norman B. Blumenthal
NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL

15
16

K:\D\NBB\Walsh v. Apple\Preliminary Approval\Decl NBB-01.wpd

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

12
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Case No.: 05:08-cv-04918 JF

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

EXHIBIT #1

26
27
28

13
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Case No.: 05:08-cv-04918 JF

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

EXHIBIT #2

26
27
28

14
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Case No.: 05:08-cv-04918 JF

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik (AV)
2255 Calle Clara, La Jolla, California 92037
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.bamlawca.com
FIRM RESUME
Areas of Practice: Consumer and Securities Class Action, Wage and Hour Class Action, Civil
Litigation, Transactional Law, Business Litigation, and Products Liability.

ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES
Norman B. Blumenthal
Partner
Practice Areas: Consumer and Securities Class Action, Civil Litigation, Transactional Law
Admitted: 1973, Illinois; 1976, California
Biography: 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. Chief
Operating 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., January 31, 1948
Kyle R. Nordrehaug
Partner
Practice Areas: Consumer and Securities Class Actions, Civil Litigation
Admitted: 1999, California
Member: State Bar of California
Educated: University of California at Berkeley (B.A., 1994); University of San Diego School of
Law (J.D. 1999)
Born: San Diego, California, October 21, 1972
Aparajit Bhowmik
Partner
Practice Areas: Civil Litigation; Consumer Class Actions
Admitted: 2006, California
Educated: University of California at San Diego (B.A., 2002); University of San Diego School of
Law (J.D. 2006)
Scott Macrae
Contract Attorney
Practice Areas: Consumer and Securities Class Action
Admitted: 1982, California
Educated: Bowdoin College (B.A., 1978); University of California at Berkeley,
Boalt Hall School of Law (J.D., 1982)
Born: Summit, New Jersey, November 26, 1956

REPORTED CASES
In re Tobacco Cases II, 41 Cal. 4th 1257 (2007); Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court, 24
Cal. 4th 906 (2001); Hall v. 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); McPhail v. First Command Fin. Planning, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 598 (S.D. Cal. 2007); McPhail
v. First Command Fin. Planning, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 514 (S.D. Cal. 2009); Gibson v. World Savings
& 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);
Teyssier v. City of San Diego, 81 Cal. App. 4th 685 (2000); Norwest Mortgage, Inc. v. Superior
Court, 72 Cal.App.4th 214 (1999); Hildago v. Diversified Transp. 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.); Olszewski v. Scripps Health, 30 Cal. 4th 798
(2003); Taiheiyo Cement Corp. v. Superior Court, 105 Cal.App. 4th 398 (2003); McMeans v.
Scripps Health, Inc., 100 Cal. App. 4th 507 (2002); Ramos v. Countrywide Home Loans, 82
Cal.App. 4th 615 (2002); Tevssier v. City of San Diego, 81 Cal.App. 4th 685; Rocker v. KPMG
LLP, 148 P.3d 703; 2006 Nev. Lexis 137; 122 Nev. Adv. Rep. 101(2006); Silvas v. E*Trade Mortg.
Corp., 514 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2008); Silvas v. E*Trade Mortg. Corp., 421 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (S.D.
Cal. 2006); PCO, Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, 150 Cal. App.
4th 384 (2007); Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 160 Cal. App. 4th 638 (2008); Rezec
v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., 116 Cal. App. 4th 135 (2004).

LEAD COUNSEL - CLASS ACTION
Adkins v. Washington Mutual Bank - Settled
Orange County Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Bank Interest Overcharges
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Agah v. CompUSA - Settled
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Case No. SA CV05-1087 DOC (Anx)
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Unfair Rebate Program
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Allec v. Cross Country Bank - Settled
Orange County Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Deceptive Advertising
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Arreguin v. Impact Solutions - “In Litigation’
Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 340107
Nature of Case: Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Barcia v. Contain-A-Way - Settled
U.S. District Court, Southern District California
Case No. 07 cv 0938
Nature of Case: ERISA and Labor Code Violations

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group
Behar v. Union Bank - In Litigation
Orange County Superior Court, case No. 30-2009-00317275
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, United Employees Law Group
Bermant v. Bank of America, Investment Services, Inc. - Settled
Los Angeles Superior Court, Civil Action No. BC342505
Nature of Case: Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug &
Arias, Ozzello & Gignac, L.L.P. &
United Employees Law Group
Bolger v. Dr. Martens - Settled
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Deceptive Advertising
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Bova v. Washington Mutual Bank / JP Morgan Chase - In Litigation
U.S. District Court, Southern District California
Case No. 07 cv 2410
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group
Briseno v. American Savings Bank - Settled
Orange County Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Force Ordered Insurance Overcharges
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Chavez & Gertler
Buonomo v. ValueVision - Settled
Minnesota District Court
Nature of Case: False Advertising, Breach of Warranty
Plaintiff’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 339051
Nature of Case: Labor
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Cabral v. Creative Communication Tech. - In Litigation
Los Angeles Superior Court
Nature of Case: Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group
Citizens for Fair Treatment v. Quest Communications - Settled
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Failure to Pay for Vacation Time
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Cohen v. Bosch Tool - Settled

San Diego Superior Court, Case No. GIC 853562
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Deceptive Advertising
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Collins v. Galpin Motors - “In Litigation”
Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 343915
Nature of Case: Overtime
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Comstock v. Washington Mutual Bank - Settled
San Diego County Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Force Order Insurance
Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Conley v. Norwest - Settled
San Diego County Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Force Ordered Insurance Overcharges
Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Connell v. Sun Microsystems - Settled
Alameda Superior Court, Case No. RG06252310
Nature of Case: Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug &
United Employees Law & Group Chavez & Gertler, LLP
Curry v. California Testing Bureau/McGraw Hill - Dismissal Affirmed on Appeal
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose
Civil Action No. C-05-4003 JW
Nature of Case: ERISA Claim
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug & Chavez & Gertler
Danford v. Movo Media - Settled
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Unlawful Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Daniels, et al. v. Philip Morris, et al. – California Supreme Court
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Unlawful, Deceptive and Unfair Marketing of Cigarettes
to Children
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Dewane v. Prudential - Settled
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Case NO. SA CV 05-1031
Nature of Case: Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug &
Wynne Law Firm & Thierman Law Firm P.C.
Downtown Inns v. Pac Bell - Settled

California Public Utilities Commission
Nature of Case: Illegal Charge
Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Sullivan Hill.
Fallah v. Cingular Wireless - Settled
Orange County Superior Court / U.S. District Court, Central District of Calfiornia
Case No.
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Unfair Rebate Program
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Fierro v. Chase Manhattan - Settled
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Bank Interest Overcharges
Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Friend v. Wellpoint - Settled
Los Angeles Superior Court, Case NO. BC345147
Nature of Case: Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group
Gabisan v. Pelican Products - Settled
U.S. District Court, Southern District California
Case No. 08 cv 1361
Nature of Case: Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group
Getchius v. National Private Security - “In Litigation”
Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 338907
Nature of Case: Overtime
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Gibson v. World Savings - Judgment for Class after Appeal - Settled
Orange County Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Force Ordered Insurance Overcharges
Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Gill v. Parabody, Inc. - Settled
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Product Defect
Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Greer v. Fleet Mortgage - Settled
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Bank Overcharges
Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Guzman v. GNC, Inc. - “In Litigation”
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Case No. CV 06-2326 MMM FMOx
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Illegal Product Sales
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug &

Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye,
O’Neill & Mullis, P.A.
Guzman v. Muscletech. - “In Litigation”
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Case No. Case No. CV06-2377 CAS JTLx
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Illegal Product Sales
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug &
Thanasides, Zalkin & Acero & Trenam, Kemker, Scharf,
Barkin, Frye, O’Neill & Mullis, P.A.
Hahn v. Circuit City – Settled
San Diego Superior Court; U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices, Failure to Pay Vacation Time
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Hall v. County of Los Angeles - On Appeal
Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC208582
Nature of Case: Gender Discrimination
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug &
The Lewis Law Firm
Handler v. Oppenheimer - On Appeal
Los Angeles Superior Court, Civil Action No. BC343542
Nature of Case: Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug &
Perona, Langer, Beck, Lallande and Serbin
Higgins v. Maryland Casualty - Settled
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Deceptive Insurance Overcharges
Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Hoffman v. National Warranty Insurance - Settled
District Court for the State of Nevada
Nature of Case: Auto Warranty Fraud
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Greco, Traficante & Edwards;
Gerard, Osuch & Cisneros, LLP
Hollander v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries - “In Litigation”
Los Angeles Superior Court
Case No.L.A.S.C. Case No. BC311446
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Illegal Product Sales
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug &
Thanasides, Zalkin & Acero & Trenam, Kemker, Scharf,
Barkin, Frye, O’Neill & Mullis, P.A.
Jones v. E*Trade Mortgage - Settled
U.S. District Court, Southern District California
Case No. 02-CV-1123 L (JAH)
Nature of Case: TILA Violations

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug &
Robert C. Fellmeth, Esq.
Kennedy v. Natural Balance - On Appeal
U.S. District Court, Southern District California
Nature of Case: Deceptive Advertising
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Keshishzadeh v. Arthur J. Gallagher Service Co. - In Litigation
U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 09-cv-0168
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations on behalf of Claims Representatives
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
King v. Nordstrom - Settled
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Failure to Pay for Vacation Time
Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Kove v. North American Title Company - In Litigation
Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC426111
Nature of Case: Unpaid Commissions
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Kove v. Old Republic Title Company - In Litigation
Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG09477437
Nature of Case: Unpaid Commissions
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Levine v. Groeniger - In Litigation
Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG09476193
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Linder v. OCWEN - In Litigation
U.S. District Court, Central District California
Case No. 07cv501
Nature of Case: Lender Placed Insurance Overcharges
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Nicholas & Butler
Lopez v. K-Mart - “In Litigation”
Ventura County Superior Court, Case No. BC 351983
Nature of Case: Overtime - Unfair Business Practice
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug & Arias, Ozzello, & Gignac, LLP & United
Employees Law Group
Louie / Stringer v. Kaiser - Settled
U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08 cv 0795
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group
Mann v. NEC - Settled

Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No. 109cv132089
Nature of Case: Missed Meal and Rest Periods
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Qualls & Workman, United Employees
Law Group
Mann v. Vital Pharmaceuticals - “In Litigation”
Los Angeles Superior Court
Case No. L.A.S.C. Case No. : BC 310790
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Illegal Product Sales
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug &
Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O’Neill & Mullis, P.A.
Mandell v. Republic Bank - Settled
Los Angeles County Superior Court
Nature of Case: Breach of Fiduciary Duties to IRA Account Holders
Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Manzanarez v. Home Savings of America - Settled
San Francisco Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Overcharge for Inspection Fees
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Marchese v. Ty, Inc. - Settled
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Deceptive Advertising
Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Martinez v. Yahoo, Inc. - Settled
Nature of Case: Deceptive Advertising
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Matloubian v. Home Savings of America - Settled
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Force Ordered Insurance Overcharges
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Chavez & Gertler
McMeans v. ScrippsHealth, - Settled
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Lien Overcharges
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
McPhail v. First Command - Settled
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Case No.05CV0179 IEG (JMA)
Nature of Case: Securities Fraud, 10(b)(5) violations
Plaintiff’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 Trial
Los Angeles Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Product Adulteration, Illegal Sale of Drugs

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Nakagawa v. LPJ Pharmaceuticals - “In Litigation”
Los Angeles Superior Court
Case No. FRESNO S.C. Case No. : 04CECG 00453
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Illegal Product Sales
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug &
Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O’Neill & Mullis, P.A.
Navarette v. Edwards Theaters/Century - “In Litigation”
Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 05CC00211
Nature of Case: Overtime
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Nelson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance - Settled
Brazoria County District Court, Texas
Nature of Case: Deceptive Business Practices in sale of oil & gas reserve insurance
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Nguyen v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage - “In Litigation”
Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 05 CC 00116
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices - Force Ordered Insurance Overcharges
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Olszewski v. ScrippsHealth - Judgment for Plaintiff
California Supreme Court Decision in Favor of Plaintiff
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Lien Overcharges
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Pacheco v. Lexicon Marketing - “In Litigation”
Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 342265
Nature of Case: Overtime
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Patelski v. The Boeing Company – Settled
United States District Court, Southern District of New York;
transferred to United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
Nature of Case: Refund Action
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Sigman, Lewis & Feinberg, P.C.
Pearlman v. Bank of America - Settled
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Force Ordered Insurance Overcharges
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Chavez & Gertler
Picus v. Wal-Mart Stores - In Litigation
U.S. District Court, District of Nevada
Case No. 2:07-CV-00682
Nature of Case: Deceptive Advertising
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Gerard & Associates

Pittard v. Salus Homecare - Settled
U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08 cv 1398
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group
Prince v. ClientLogic - In Litigation
Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada
No Case No. A517624
Nature of Case: Overtime
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug & Gerard & Osuch, LLP
Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage - Decision on Appeal
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices - Bank Interest Overcharges
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Ralphs v. Blockbuster, Inc. – Settled
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unlawful Late Fees
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Morris and Associates, Pettersen and Bark
Ramos v. Countrywide - Settled
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Force Ordered Insurance Overcharges
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Sullivan Hill; Chavez & Gertler
Rangel v. Balboa Ambulance - In Litigation
San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2008-00095700
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Petersen & Bark
Redin v. Sterling Trust - Settled
Los Angeles Superior Court
Nature of Case: Breach of Fiduciary Duties of IRA Administrator
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Reynolds v. Marlboro/Philip Morris U.S.A.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Civil Action No. 05 CV 1876 JAH
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Rezec v. Sony – Settled
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Fraudulent Advertising
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Prongay & Borderud; The Cifarelli Law Firm
Rix v. Lockheed - In Litigation
United States District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 3:09-cv-02063
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Rocheford v. SC&E Administrative Service - Settled
Orange County Superior Court
Nature of Case: Auto Warranty Fraud
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Greco, Traficante & Edwards;
Gerard, Osuch & Cisneros, LLP
Santone v. AT&T – Settled
United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama
Nature of Case: Unconscionable Business Practices
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Morris & Associates
Santos v. Sleep Train - In Litigation
Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2008-00214586
San Francisco Superior Court, JCCP-4553
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group
Scott v. Blockbuster, Inc. – Settled
Count of Appeals, Ninth District of Texas, Beaumont, Texas
Nature of Case: Unlawful Late Fees
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Brothers & Thomas, LLP, Vaughan O. Stewart
Schulz v. Qualxserv - In Litigation
U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 09-cv-0017
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Shiell v. County of Los Angeles - On Appeal
Los Angeles Superior Court
Case Number BC208583; [Related to]: BC208582
Nature of Case: Claim for Common Law Employment
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug &
The Lewis Law Firm
Silvas v. E*Trade - Dismissal Affirmed on Appeal
U.S. District Court, Southern District
CASE NO. 05cv02348 - W (NLS)
Nature of Case: TILA Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and 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 Columbia
Nature of Case: Unlawful Marketing of Cigarettes to Children
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Thorsnes, Bartolotta & McGuire;
Chavez & Gertler, Thomas E. Sharkey and Fleishman & Fisher
Sirota v. Swing-N-Slide - Settled
Wisconsin District Court, County of Rock Wisconsin

Case No. 95CV726J
Nature of Case: Fraudulent Stock Buy Back-Derivative Claim
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Sullivan Hill; Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes &
Lerach; Nowlan & Mouat
Smith v. Kaiser - Settled
U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08-cv-02353
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group
Sorensen v. Binions, - “In Litigation”
Nature of Case: ERISA violation
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Gerard & Osuch
Steroid Hormone Product Cases - On Appeal
Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP4363
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Sale of Illegal Products
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug &
Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye,
O’Neill & Mullis, P.A.
Stevens v. Robinsons-May - Settled
San Diego Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Failure to Pay for Vacation Time
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Strauss v. Bayer Corporation – Settled
United States District Court, District of Minnesota
Nature of Case: Baycol Products Liaibility Litigation
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Fleishman & Fisher
Sussex v. Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers - In Litigation
U.S. District Court, District of Nevada
Case No. 08-cv-00773
Nature of Case: Securities Violations, Fraud
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Gerard & Associates
Sustersic v. International Paper - In Litigation
Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00331538
Nature of Case: Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
Tan v. CSAA - Settled
U.S. District Court, Central District California, Case No. 07cv1011
Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2008-00231219
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group
Tauber v. Alaska Airlines, et al. - Settled
Los Angeles Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practice - Employment Practices

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Trujillo v. LivHome - In Litigation
Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 30-2008-00100372
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group
Tull v. Stewart Title - In Litigation
U.S. District Court, Southern District California,
Case No. 08-CV-1095
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Van Gorp v. Ameriquest Mortgage/Deutsche Bank - “In Litigation”
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Case No. SACV05-907 CJC (ANx)
Nature of Case: Overtime
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Wadhwa v. Escrow Plus - Settled
Los Angeles Superior Court
Nature of Case: Investment Fraud
Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Walsh v. Apple, Inc. - Settled
U.S. District Court, Northern District California, Case No. 08-cv-04918
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group
Weltman v. Ortho Mattress - In Litigation
U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08 cv 0840
Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00327802
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, United Employees Law Group
Wietzke v. Costar Realty - In Litigation
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-2743
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
Williams v. Lockheed - In Litigation
U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 3:09-cv-01669
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, United Employees Law Group
Wilson v. D.R. Horton, - In Litigation
U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08-0592
Nature of Case: Antitrust
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Gerard & Associates

Wise v. Cubic - Settled
U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08-cv-2315
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, United Employees Law Group
Yam v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals - In Litigation
U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 10-cv-134
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, United Employees Law Group
Yao v. Bodyonics, Ltd. - “In Litigation”
Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP No. 4363
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Illegal Product Sales
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug
Zugich v. Wells Fargo Bank - Settled
San Francisco Superior Court
Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Force Ordered Insurance Overcharges
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Zurlo v. Mission Linen - Settled
U.S. District Court, Central District, Case No. 08cv1326
Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug

CO-COUNSEL - Class Actions
Baxt v. Scor U.S. - Settled
Delaware Court of Chancery
Nature of Case: Takeover
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Sullivan Hill;
Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess, P.A.
Bronson v. Blech Securities - Settled
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Nature of Case: Securities Fraud
Plaintiffs’ 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 Coordinated Litigation”
In re Automobile Antitrust Cases
San Diego Superior Court, coordinated in San Francisco

Nature of Case: Unfair Competition; Antitrust
Plaintiff's Co-Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Dibella v. Olympic Financial - Settled
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Nature of Case: Securities Fraud
Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Ferrari v. Read-Rite - Settled
U. S. District Court, Northern District of California
Nature of Case: Securities Fraud
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach
Hart v. United States Tobacco Co. - Settled
Los Angeles Superior Court
Coordinated in Smokeless Tobacco Litigation
Nature of Case: Unfair Competition; Antitrust
Plaintiff’s Co-Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; the Cuneo Law Group P.C.; Gordon Ball
Kensington Capital v. Oakley - Settled
U. S. District Court, Southern District of California
Nature of Case: Securities Fraud
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach
Kensington Capital v. Vesta - Settled
U. S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama
Nature of Case: Securities Fraud
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach
Manaster v. SureBeam - Settled
United States District Court
Nature of Case: Violation of Securities Act
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
Jordan/Ramos v. DMV - Judgment for Plaintiff
Superior Court, Sacramento
Nature of Case: Commerce Clause Violation - Tax declared unconstitutional Affirmed on appeal
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach;
Weiss & Yourman; Sullivan Hill.
Ridgewood Capital Management v. Gensia - Settled
U.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 - Settled
State of Minnesota District Court, Fourth District, #94-17640
Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach; Kaplan,
Kilsheimer & Fox; Sullivan Hill; Law Offices of Lawrence G. Soicher.

Sirota v. Swing-N-Slide - Settled
Wisconsin District Court, County of Rock Wisconsin
Nature of Case: Fraudulent Stock Buy-Back-Derivative Claim
Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Sullivan Hill;
Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach; Nowlan & Mouat
Slatton v. G.E. Capital Mortgage Services - Settled
Camden County Superior Court, New Jersey, #CAML0256198
Nature of Case: Forced order insurance
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Somkin v. Molten Metal - Settled
U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, #9710325PBS
Nature of Case: Securities Fraud
Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
Sparks v AT&T - Settled
Illinois District Court - Madison County
Deceptive Practice claim - Leased consumer telephone equipment
Plaintiff’s counsel - Carr Korein Tillery; Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Whatley Drake