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

BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK Norman B. Blumenthal (State Bar #068687) Kyle R. Nordrehaug (State Bar #205975) Aparajit Bhowmik (State Bar #248066) 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP Walter Haines (State Bar #71705) 65 Pine Ave, #312 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

E-FILED
Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM
David H. Yamasaki
Chief Executive Officer/Clerk Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947 By D. Kontorovsky, Deputy

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA NIKKI MEIERDIERCKS, an individual; KARIN FLAVETTA, an individual; FRANK TORRES, an individual; on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. 8X8, INC.; and Does 1 to 10, Defendants. Date: April 29, 2011 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 1 Judge: Hon. James P. Kleinberg [Complaint Filed: January 27, 2010] CASE No. 110cv162413 (Class Action) DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

-1-

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

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

I, KYLE R. NORDREHAUG, declare as follows: 1. I am a partner in the law firm of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik counsel of

record for the Plaintiffs and the putative Class in this matter. As such, I am fully familiar with the facts, pleadings and history of this matter. The following facts are within my own personal knowledge, and if called as a witness, I could testify competently to the matters stated herein. 2. This declaration is being submitted in support of plaintiff’s Motion For an Order

(1) Preliminarily Approving Settlement of Plaintiffs’ Claims; (2) Scheduling Final Fairness Hearing; and, (3) Directing that Notice be sent to Class Members. Assuming the Court signs the

Preliminary Approval Order on April 29, 2011, Plaintiffs suggest that the Final Fairness Hearing be set for a date that is 130 days out, which would mean September 9, 2011 or as soon thereafter as the Court is available. Lodged herewith as Exhibit 1 is a copy of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) along with exhibits thereto.1

Fairness of Settlement 3. Plaintiffs have agreed to a class Settlement with Defendant 8x8, Inc. (“Defendant”).

As consideration for this Settlement, the Settlement Total that Defendant will pay under this Settlement is a total of Six Hundred Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($625,000). This payment will settle all issues pending in the litigation between the Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and the Defendant, on the other hand, including but not limited to, all payments to the Settlement Class, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, Service Payments to the Plaintiffs, the PAGA payment, and the expenses of the Claims Administrator. All of the Settlement Total will be disbursed pursuant to this Agreement, and no funds will revert to Defendant. 4. The relief provided in the settlement will benefit all members of the Settlement Class

equally. The settlement does not grant preferential treatment to Plaintiffs or segments of the Settlement Class in any way. All Settlement Class Members will receive the same opportunity to participate in and receive payment. Payments to the Settlement Class are all determined under the
1

28

Capitalized terms have the same meaning as contained in the Agreement.

DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

-2-

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

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

same methodology and are based upon each employees workweeks during the Class Period. The Settlement Share for each Claimant will be calculated by (a) dividing the Net Settlement Total by the total number of work weeks in a covered position during the Class Period for all Class Members and (b) multiplying the result by each individual Claimant’s work weeks in a covered position during the Class Period. (Agreement at §III(C)(1).) 5. Settlement negotiations took place before David Rotman, one of the preeminent

mediators of wage and hour class actions in California. In preparation for the mediation, Defendant provided Class Counsel with all of the necessary data, including time records and payroll information for the members of the Class. Plaintiffs analyzed the data with the assistant of their damages expert, Desmond, Marcello & Amster ("DM&A"), prepared damage estimates, and submitted a mediation brief to Mr. Rotman. The all-day mediation session held on November 9, 2010 was contentious and arm's length, and ultimately resulted in a mediator's settlement proposal which the parties accepted. Based on Defendant’s data and their own independent investigation and evaluation, Class Counsel is of the opinion that the settlement with Defendant for the consideration and on the terms set forth in the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and is in the best interest of the class in light of all known facts and circumstances, including the risk of significant delay, defenses asserted by Defendant, the possibility that little or no monetary relief could be awarded at trial, and numerous potential appellate issues. 6. In October 2010, the damage estimates to compensate for the amount due for the

unpaid overtime was calculated by Desmond, Marcello & Amster ("DM&A"), Plaintiffs' damage expert, based upon the time record and payroll information obtained from Defendant. For the employees in the Settlement Class whose claims are at issue here, the compensation owed to the members of the class for unpaid overtime equaled $947,328. Once estimates for meal break compensation, wage statement penalties, waiting time penalties and other statutory penalties are included, the total maximum damage estimates was $1.56 million. The settlement of $625,000.00 represents at least 65% of the total unpaid overtime, and 40% of the maximum value of all claims and penalties, assuming these amounts could be proven at trial. Clearly the goal of this litigation to

DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

-3-

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

obtain payment for the unpaid vacation has been met. The Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and should be preliminarily approved. Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court grant preliminary approval of the Stipulation for Settlement.

Procedural History of the Litigation 7. On January 27, 2010, plaintiffs Nikki Meierdiercks, Karin Flavetta, and Frank Torres

filed a Complaint against 8x8, Inc. in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara. The Complaint alleged the following causes of action: Unfair Competition (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.); Failure to Pay Overtime Wages (Labor Code §§ 510, et seq.); Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods (Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512); Failure to Indemnify Business Expenses (Labor Code § 2802); and Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements (Labor Code § 226). The Complaint was filed as a class action. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs and other employees were misclassified as “exempt” employees, and as a result, these employees failed to receive overtime compensation, off-duty meal periods and other benefits. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class composed of themselves and similarly situated individuals and to recover from Defendant wages, interest, penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs. 8. On March 2, 2010, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint. In the Answer,

Defendant denied the allegations set forth in the Complaint and denied that Plaintiffs suffered any damages as a result of its conduct. Defendant contended that Plaintiffs and Defendant’s other similarly situated employees were properly classified as exempt from overtime. 9. On April 29, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint which, inter alia, (I)

revised certain of the allegations while retaining the material allegations of their claims, and (II) added a claim for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (Cal. Labor Code § 2698, et seq.) based upon the same material allegations. On May 21, 2010, Defendant filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint.

10.

Defendant answered each of Plaintiffs’ Complaints, denying the material allegations.

Specifically, Defendant contended (and continues to contend) that the Action could not properly be

DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

-4-

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

maintained as a class action; that members of the class were properly classified as exempt from state overtime requirements; that Defendant did not fail to pay to any members of the class who are former employees any wages allegedly due at the time of their termination; that Defendant provided accurate, itemized wage statements to members of the class; that Defendant provided meal and rest periods to the members of the class; that Defendant did not fail to reimburse employees for business expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties; that Defendant did not violate California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq; and that Defendant is not liable for any of the penalties claimed or that could be claimed in the Complaints. 11. On June 7, 8 and 9, 2010, the Defendant took the deposition of each of the named

Plaintiffs. On September 15, 2010, Plaintiffs deposed Defendant’s corporate designee Daniel Weirich, and on September 16, 2010, Plaintiffs deposed Defendant’s second corporate designee Marc Cook. Plaintiffs also served and Defendant responded to three sets of Special Interrogatories, three sets of Requests for Admissions, three sets of Requests for Production, and three sets of Form Interrogatories. Through the Claims Administrator, Plaintiffs distributed the Belaire Notice to the putative class and thereafter received the contact information for the employees who did not opt out. Plaintiffs conducted interviews of putative class members. Plaintiffs also responded to Defendant’s written discovery. 12. On June 25, 2010, the Court conducted a case management conference in the Action.

On September 17, 2010, the Court conducted a continued case management conference in the Action, and also held an informal conference to address a discovery dispute that was briefed by both parties. 13. Defendant produced the computer system information for each named Plaintiff in

April 2010 which showed the dates and time of work performed by the Sales Representatives. and, in anticipation of mediation, Defendant also produced this information for all 166 members of the putative class along with the necessary payroll data for all 166 members of the putative class. 14. On November 9, 2010, the parties engaged in mediation before David Rotman, a

preeminent mediator of wage and hour class actions. At the mediation, the parties, represented by

DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

-5-

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

its respective counsel, recognized the substantial risk of an adverse result in the Action and successfully negotiated a class action settlement of this action. The parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth the basic terms of the Settlement. 15. Class Counsel has conducted a thorough investigation into the facts of the class

action. Class Counsel has diligently evaluated the Class Members' claims against Defendant. Prior to the Parties executing a “Memorandum of Understanding,” Class Counsel obtained all necessary information concerning Defendant’s employment policies and practices and Class Member data, including relevant salary and time record information for the employees at issue. Based on the foregoing data and their own independent investigation and evaluation, Class Counsel believes that the settlement with Defendant for the consideration and on the terms set forth in this Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and is in the best interest of the Class in light of all known facts and circumstances, including the risk of significant delay, defenses asserted by Defendant, and numerous potential appellate issues.

Plan of Allocation 16. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Settlement Total that

Defendant will pay under this Settlement is a total of Six Hundred Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($625,000). This amount constitutes Defendant’s entire financial obligation pursuant to this Agreement (provided that if there is insufficient funds in the residual account to pay Defendant’s payroll tax burden, Defendant shall pay the amount of the payroll tax burden which is not covered by the residual account). All of the Settlement Total will be disbursed pursuant to this Agreement, and no funds will revert to Defendant. (Agreement at §III(A).) The “Net Settlement Total” means the net amount of the Settlement Total available for payment of claims to class members after deducting therefrom the expenses charged for claims administration, attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of attorneys’ expenses, the LWDA share of the PAGA payment and the service awards. (Agreement at §I(V).) 17. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the Claims Administrator will

DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

-6-

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

make the following payments out of the Settlement Total as follows: (1) Settlement Shares to the Claimants; (2) the reasonable fees and expenses of the Claims Administrator in an amount not to exceed $15,000; (3) the payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency in the amount of $3,750; (4) an award of not more than $156,250 (25% of the Settlement Total) to Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees; (5) an amount not more than $25,000 to Class Counsel as reimbursement for litigation expenses incurred; and, (6) an award of not more than $5,000 to each Plaintiff as his or her Class Representative Service Payment. (Agreement at §III(B)-(C).) All Unclaimed Settlement Shares or unclaimed funds allocated to Non-Participating Class Members shall be allocated first to payment of the Defendant’s share of payroll taxes on those Wage Portions of the Net Settlement Total, and thereafter, any remaining funds in the Net Settlement Total shall be distributed to Claimants on a pro rata basis relative to their Settlement Shares. (Agreement at §III(C)(5).) If there are not sufficient funds in the residual account to pay Defendant’s payroll tax burden, Defendant shall pay the amount of the payroll tax burden which is not covered by the residual account. (Agreement at §III(A).) 18. Under the Settlement, the Claims Administrator will pay a Settlement Share from the

Net Settlement Total to each Claimant who timely and properly submits a Claim Form. The Settlement Share for each Claimant will be calculated by (a) dividing the Net Settlement Total by the total number of work weeks in a covered position during the Class Period for all Class Members and (b) multiplying the result by each individual Claimant’s work weeks in a covered position during the Class Period. (Agreement at §III(C)(1).) One-half (50 %) of each Settlement Share shall be allocated to wages, and one-half (50%) of each Settlement Share shall be allocated to interest and penalties allegedly due to employees. 19. Non-Participating Class Members will receive no Settlement Share, and their

election not to participate will reduce neither the Settlement Total nor the Net Settlement Total. Their respective Settlement Shares will be retained in the Net Settlement Total for distribution. (Agreement at §III(C)(3).) If a Participating Class Member does not submit a valid and timely Claim Form and therefore does not qualify as a Claimant, the Settlement Share that would have

DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

-7-

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

been paid to him or her if he or she had qualified as a Claimant (the “Unclaimed Settlement Share”) will be retained in the Net Settlement Total for distribution (Agreement at §III(C)(4).) All Unclaimed Settlement Shares or unclaimed funds allocated to Non-Participating Class Members shall be allocated first to payment of the Defendant’s share of payroll taxes on those Wage Portions of the Net Settlement Total, and thereafter, any remaining funds in the Net Settlement Total shall be distributed to Claimants on a pro rata basis relative to their Settlement Shares. (Agreement at §III(C)(5).)

Risks of Continued Litigation 20. Here, a number of defenses asserted by Defendant presented threats to the claims of

Plaintiffs and the other Class Members. Defendant likely would assert that Defendant’s employment practices complied with all applicable Labor laws. For example, Defendant contended that Class Members were barred from recovery by the "administrative exemption" because they perform work consisting of representing the employer with the public, negotiating on behalf of the company, advising and consulting with clients, and engage in sales promotion. See, e.g., Hogan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 361 F.3d 621, 627 (11th Cir. Fla. 2004) (Court determined that for insurance salespersons, promoting sales and advising customers regarding sales were administrative rather than production tasks). Defendant also contended that many of the employees were subject to the commissioned salesperson exemption. Defendant argued that, irrespective of the exemption arguments, that the Defendant’s potential overtime liability was minimal because the employees only worked during regular business hours. As to the expense reimbursement claim, Defendant contended that none of the claimed expenses, which entirely consisted of home internet connection costs, were reasonably incurred since employees only worked during regular business hours or were actually incurred for work. As to the meal and rest break claims, Defendant maintained written policies permitting and encouraging employees to take meal and rest periods, and therefore could argue that Defendant authorized, permitted and provided meal periods and rest breaks to its Sales Representatives.

DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

-8-

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

21.

Defendant could also contest class certification by arguing that the question of

whether a particular employee had unpaid overtime requires an individual case by case analysis, and the proof of injury would require individualized evidence which would preclude class certification. See e.g. Ali v. U.S.A. Cab, Ltd., 176 Cal. App. 4th 1333, 1350 (2009). There was a significant risk that, if the Actions were not settled, Plaintiffs would be unable to obtain class certification and thereby not recover on behalf of any employees other than themselves. In Dunbar v. Albertson's, Inc., 141 Cal. App. 4th 1422, 1431-32 (2006), the California Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying class certification to a class of employees who claimed that they were denied overtime pay because whether the executive exemption applied would have had to have been individually determined for each class member which meant that common issues did not predominate. Similarly, here Defendant would have certainly argued in opposing class certification that individual issues predominated because the applicability of the administrative exemption would have to be separately determined for each Class Member based on their individual experience. While other cases have approved class certification in overtime wage claims, class certification in this action would have been hotly disputed and was by no means a foregone conclusion. Accordingly, class-wide liability was far from certain. 22. The stage of the proceedings at which this settlement was reached also militates in

favor of preliminary approval and ultimately, final approval of the settlement. Class Counsel has conducted a thorough investigation into the facts of the class action. Class Counsel began investigating the Class Members’ claims before this action was filed. Class Counsel conducted significant discovery, including document requests including three (3) sets of Requests for Production, three (3) sets of Requests for Admissions, three (3) sets of Special Interrogatories, and three (3) sets of Form Interrogatories. Class Counsel conducted two (2) depositions of the corporate designated witnesses, and all of the Plaintiffs were deposed. Class Counsel obtained production of all relevant business and payroll records produced through both formal and informal discovery. Class Counsel engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the relevant documents and data with the assistance of experts. Accordingly, the agreement to settle did not occur until

DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

-9-

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Class Counsel possessed sufficient information to make an informed judgment regarding the likelihood of success on the merits and the results that could be obtained through further litigation. 23. Based on the foregoing data and their own independent investigation and evaluation,

Class Counsel is of the opinion that the settlement with Defendant for the consideration and on the terms set forth in the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and is in the best interest of the class in light of all known facts and circumstances, including the risk of significant delay, defenses asserted by Defendant, and numerous potential appellate issues. There can be no doubt that Class Counsel possessed sufficient information to make an informed judgment regarding the likelihood of success on the merits and the results that could be obtained through further litigation. 24. There is no need for continued litigation simply to reaffirm what is already known

by the negotiating parties. The extensive due diligence performed by Class Counsel has not created any doubt concerning the accuracy of the information supplied by Defendant. Given the complexities of this case, potential offsets, along with the uncertainties of proof and appeal, the proposed settlement in Plaintiffs’ and Class Counsel’s view is well within the range of possible approval and has no obvious deficiencies.

Class Certification 25. The proposed Settlement Class meet all of the requirements for class certification

under California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 as demonstrated below, and therefore, the Court may appropriately approve the Class as defined in the Agreement. (Agreement at §III(E).) This Court should conditionally certify a settlement class for settlement purposes only that consists of “all persons who worked in California for 8x8, Inc. for one or more weeks between January 27, 2006 and June 30, 2010 as Sales Representatives, Account Managers and/or Account Executives and who were classified as “exempt” from overtime.” (Agreement at §I(F).) a. Numerosity - Here, the Settlement Class is composed of 166 current and

former employees, which is sufficiently numerous. b. Commonality - Here, common questions of law and fact, as alleged by the

DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

-10-

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs, are present, specifically the question of whether the sales employees employed by Defendant were "exempt" from overtime under California law. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant had engaged in a uniform course of conduct with respect to the Settlement Class and the only question is whether Defendant's conduct supports a meritorious claim for exemption misclassification. Such suits challenging the legality of a standardized course of conduct are generally appropriate for resolution by means of a class action. c. Typicality - The Plaintiffs, like every other member of the Class, were

employed by Defendant and classified as "exempt" by Defendant. The Plaintiffs performed the same type of sales and consulting work as the other members of the Class. The Plaintiffs, like every other member of the Class, claim unpaid overtime wages for work performed in the same job classification. Thus, the claims of both the Plaintiffs and the Members of the Class arise from the same course of conduct by the Defendant, involve the same work performed, and are based on the same legal theories. d. Adequacy - Plaintiffs are well aware of their duties as the representatives of

the class and actively participated in the prosecution of this case to date. They effectively communicated with counsel, providing documents to counsel and participated extensively in discovery, investigation and negotiations in the Action. Plaintiff also retained competent counsel who have extensive experience in employment class actions. (See below). e. Predominance - Here, common questions of law and fact, as alleged by the

Plaintiffs, are present, specifically the question of whether the sales employees employed by Defendant were “exempt” from overtime under California law. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant had engaged in a uniform course of conduct with respect to the Settlement Class and the only question is whether Defendant’s conduct supports a meritorious claim for exemption misclassification. Such suits challenging the legality of a standardized course of conduct are generally appropriate for resolution by means of a class action. 26. Class Counsel is experienced in prosecuting class action lawsuits and can

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

DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

-11-

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

litigation experience. We have handled a number of class actions and complex commercial cases and have acted both as counsel and as lead and co-lead counsel in a variety of these matters. We have successfully prosecuted and obtained significant recoveries in numerous class action lawsuits and other lawsuits involving complex issues of law and fact, including many wage and hour class actions. Class Counsel has been involved as class counsel in over two hundred (200) class action matters. A variety of Courts in California have approved my firm as adequate class counsel. A true and correct copy of the resume of my firm is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 7th day of April, 2011, at La Jolla, California.

By: /s/ Kyle R. Nordrehaug Kyle R. Nordrehaug

K:\D\NBB\Meierdiercks v 8x8\Preliminary Approval\p-Decl - KRN.wpd

DECLARATION OF KYLE R. NORDREHAUG IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

-12-

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

DECLARATION OF KYLE NORDREHAUG

EXHIBIT #1

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT A

[NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION]

-1-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK Norman B. Blumenthal # 068687 Kyle R. Nordrehaug # 205975 Aparajit Bhowmik # 248066 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP Walter Haines # 71075 65 Pine Avenue, #312 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

NIKKI MEIERDIERCKS, an individual; KARIN FLAVETTA, an individual; FRANK TORRES, an individual; on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. 8X8, INC.; and Does 1 to 10,
Defendants.

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

No. 110cv162413
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING Dept.: 1 Judge: Hon. James Kleinberg

NOTICE TO CURRENT AND FORMER SALES REPRESENTATIVES, ACCOUNT MANAGERS AND ACCOUNT EXECUTIVES WHO WORKED FOR 8X8, INC. IN CALIFORNIA: PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IT RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LITIGATION. IF YOU ARE OR WERE EMPLOYED BY 8X8 IN CALIFORNIA AS A SALES REPRESENTATIVE, ACCOUNT MANAGER AND/OR ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE FOR ONE OR MORE WEEKS -1NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

BETWEEN JANUARY 27, 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2010 AND WERE CLASSIFIED AS EXEMPT FROM OVERTIME, THIS NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION AS TO YOUR RIGHT TO RECEIVE PAYMENT, TO ELECT TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, OR TO OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. Pursuant to the Order of the Superior Court of the State of California for Santa Clara County entered [________, 2011], YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: A proposed class settlement has been reached between the parties in the above-captioned action pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for Santa Clara County, and preliminarily approved by the Court, for certain current and former California employees of 8X8, Inc. (referred to as “8X8”) as described in Section I below. You have received this notice because 8X8’s records indicate that you are one of the individuals who fall within the Settlement Class. I. WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASS?

The Settlement Class consists of all persons who worked in California for 8x8, Inc. for one or more weeks between January 27, 2006 and June 30, 2010 as Sales Representatives, Account Managers and/or Account Executives and who were classified as “exempt” from overtime. II. WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

This settlement resolves a lawsuit filed by former employees of 8X8, Nikki Meierdiercks, Karin Flavetta, and Frank Torres (“Plaintiffs”). Nikki Meierdiercks, Karin Flavetta, and Frank Torres are referred to as “Class Representatives” or “Plaintiffs.” The Class Representatives alleges that 8X8 improperly classified Sales Representatives, Account Managers and Account Executives as “exempt” from overtime compensation and failed to pay these employees all wages due them by 8X8. On behalf of themselves and the other Settlement Class Members, the Plaintiffs sought payment for alleged unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest period payments, failure to pay wages due at time of termination,

-2NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

failure to provide business expense reimbursement, failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements and related statutory and civil penalties. 8X8 denies the claims of the Class Representative and contends, among other things, that these employees were properly classified as exempt under California law, and that Plaintiffs and the class they seeks to represent were paid all wages due and were provided with all legally required compensation and reimbursements. Since this action was filed, there has been ongoing investigation, significant discovery, and information exchanged through informal discovery. Furthermore, the Parties participated in extensive settlement discussions, including a mediation conference before a neutral and widely respected mediator. As a result of this mediation and arm’slength negotiations, the Parties reached a proposed settlement on November 9, 2010. The Parties have entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”), which was preliminarily approved by the Court. The Class Representatives and Settlement Class Counsel support this settlement. Among the reasons for their support are the complete defenses to liability potentially available to 8X8, the inherent risk of trial on the merits, and the delays associated with litigation. If you are a member of the Class as defined in Section I above, you may participate in the settlement. This settlement includes (a) payment to the members of the Settlement Class; (b) entry of a judgment and final order approving the settlement; and (c) discharge and complete release of all Parties and their respective counsel from liability for any and all of the Released Claims. This Judgment and Final Order shall have a res judicata effect and bar the Plaintiffs and each Settlement Class Member who has not been excluded from the Settlement Class from bringing any action asserting any claims released in the Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”). III. WHO ARE THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING THE PARTIES?

Counsel for the Class (“Settlement Class Counsel”) is: Norman B. Blumenthal Kyle R. Nordrehaug Aparajit Bhowmik Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik -3NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4

2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com Email: norm@bamlawlj.com Counsel for 8X8, Inc. (“Defense Counsel”) is:

5 6 7 8 9 Copies of any documents filed with the Court in this litigation should be sent to the 10 above-listed counsel. 11 IV. 12 The Settlement Administrator is Gilardi & Co., PO Box ____, San Rafael, CA 13 94______, Telephone: xxx-xxx-xxxx 14 V. 15 The settlement preliminarily approved by the Court provides for the terms 16 summarized below. A complete copy of the Settlement Agreement may be examined 17 during regular office hours in the office of the Clerk of the Court. 18 A. 19 The total and all inclusive Settlement Total shall be a maximum of Six Hundred 20 Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($625,000) (the “Settlement Total”). All settlement 21 amounts to be paid under this Agreement shall be paid out of this Settlement Total, and the 22 cumulative amount of all such settlement amounts shall not exceed the Settlement Total. 23 Such settlement amounts shall include all amounts to be paid to Plaintiffs and Settlement 24 Class Members; all amounts to be paid to as Class Counsel Fees Payment and Class 25 Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment; all amounts to be paid as a Service Payment to the 26 Plaintiffs; all amounts to be paid as the fees and costs of the Claims Administrator; the 27 payment to the California Labor Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) for its 28 -4NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING

Laura E. Innes Jamie Rudman Simpson, Garrity, Innes & Jacuzzi 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 950 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Telephone: (650) 615-4860 Fax: (650) 615-4861

WHO IS THE SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR

WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.

Settlement Total.

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

portion of the amount paid to settle alleged claims for Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) penalties, and any other Settlement Amounts to be paid according to the Settlement Agreement. All of these payments are subject to the final approval of the Court. B. Claims Administration Costs.

All costs of administering the Settlement (“Claims Administration Costs”) shall also be paid from the Qualified Settlement Fund. These costs shall not exceed $15,000. C. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

Settlement Class Counsel will be paid up to 25% of the Settlement Total, which equals approximately $156,250 for Class Counsel Fees Payment and up to $25,000 for Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment. D. Service Payments to Plaintiffs.

Subject to Court approval, Plaintiffs shall receive a Service Payment of $5,000 each in recognition of the services they rendered in obtaining the settlement for the benefit of the Settlement Class, as described herein, and the financial risks undertaken by the Plaintiffs in pursuing this matter on behalf of the Settlement Class. E. Payment to the LWDA.

The Parties agree to allocate $5,000.00 of the Settlement Total, as penalties authorized by PAGA. Seventy-five percent (75%) of this amount, which is $3,750, will be paid to the LWDA and twenty-five percent (25%) of this amount will be distributed to Settlement Class Members in accordance with the Settlement. F. Settlement Shares Payable to Class Members.

Settlement Class Members shall be paid their Settlement Shares from the Qualified Settlement Fund after deduction of (1) Claims Administration Costs; (2) Counsel Fees Payment; (3) Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment; (4) the Service Payments to the Class Representatives; and, (5) amounts paid to the LWDA for PAGA penalties. The amount left after these deductions from which to pay Settlement Class Members is estimated to be approximately $410,000 (“the Net Settlement Total”). The Settlement Share for each Claimant will be calculated by (a) dividing the Net -5NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Settlement Total by the total number of work weeks in a covered position during the Class Period for all Class Members and (b) multiplying the result by each individual Claimant’s work weeks in a covered position during the Class Period. G. Tax Treatment of Individual Settlement Amounts

The Settlement Payments paid each Settlement Class Member will be allocated between wages, interest, penalties and the individual’s payment for alleged civil (PAGA) penalties. One-half (50 %) of each Settlement Share shall be allocated to wages (the “Wage Portion”). Accordingly, the Wage Portion is subject to wage withholdings, and shall be reported on IRS Form W-2. One-half (50%) of each Settlement Share shall be allocated to interest and penalties allegedly due to employees (the “Non-Wage Portion”). Accordingly, the Non-Wage Portion shall not be subject to wage withholdings, and shall be reported on IRS Form 1099. VI. A. WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS AS A CLASS MEMBER? How do I receive a payment from the Settlement?

If you want to participate in the Settlement and receive money under the Settlement, you must sign and date the enclosed Claim Form and mail the completed Claim Form postmarked by [60 days from mailing] to the Claims Administrator at the following address: 8X8 Overtime Settlement c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box ____ Corte Madera, CA 94976-1110 Telephone: (866) ___________ A copy of your Claim Form is enclosed. (If you need an extra copy, contact the Settlement Administrator at the address or telephone number above). If any information provided on the Claim Form is incorrect, please make corrections. For example, if your address is incorrect, please

24
indicate your correct address. Also, please provide your telephone number and any other requested

25 26 27 28
information if it is not already filled in. If you wish to have confirmation that the Settlement Administrator has received your Claim Form, please send your Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator by certified U.S. Mail with a return-receipt request.

-6NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The Election Not to Participate in Settlement form must be mailed via first class 15 mail and postmarked no later than _______, 2011 [insert date 45 days from mailing of 16 notice]. 17 Any person who files a complete and timely Election Not to Participate in 18 Settlement form shall, upon receipt, no longer be a member of the Settlement Class, shall be 19 barred from participating in any portion of the settlement, and shall receive no benefits 20 from the settlement. Any such person, at his/her own expense, may pursue any claims 21 he/she may have against 8X8. However, there are deadlines to pursuing such claims known 22 as statutes of limitation. Please consult an attorney of your choice to ensure you are not 23 forever barred from pursuing your individual claim if you decide to opt out of the 24 settlement. 25 D. 26 You may object to the terms of the settlement before final approval. If you choose 27 to object to the settlement, you may represent yourself or hire your own attorney. You must 28 -7NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING

B. What if I do nothing? If you do nothing -- that is if you do not mail a timely Claim Form or timely opt out from the Class in the manner described below – you will not be entitled to a share of the Settlement. However, you will be bound by the terms of the Settlement, including the Release. C. How do I opt out from the settlement?

If you do not wish to participate in the settlement, you may exclude yourself (“opt out”) by completing the Election Not to Participate in Settlement that is enclosed. The Election Not to Participate in Settlement form must be completed, signed, dated, and returned to the Claims Administrator as follows: 8X8 Overtime Settlement Gilardi & Co. PO Box _____________ San Rafael, CA 94_____

How do I object to the settlement?

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

file a written objection and notice of intention to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing described below in Section VII. You must file these documents, along with any brief, exhibits, and/or other material that you wish the Court to consider, with the Clerk of the Court, Santa Clara County Superior Court, 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113. In addition, you must send copies to the Settlement Class Counsel and Defense Counsel indentified in Section III above. Any written objections should state each specific reason for your objection and any legal support for each objection. Your objection must also state your full name, address, and the dates of your employment by 8X8. To be valid and effective, any objections to the proposed settlement must be filed with the Clerk of the Court and served upon each of the above-listed attorneys no later than ______, 2011 [insert date 45 days from mailing of notice]. If you object to the Settlement, you will remain a member of the Class, and if the Court approves the Settlement, you will be bound by the terms of the Settlement in the same way as Class Members who do not object, unless you have opted out of the Settlement in the manner described above, and if you have timely submitted a valid Claim Form, you will receive your Settlement Share despite your objection to the Settlement. . VII. 1. RELEASE OF CLAIMS. In consideration of the monetary sum provided by Defendant and upon final

approval of this Agreement by the Court, the Settlement Class and each of the Class Members hereby waive, fully release and forever discharge the Releasees from any and all claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, damages, action or causes of action of any kind, whether known or unknown, which have been or could have been asserted against Defendant and/or the Releasees arising out of or related to all claims for wages, overtime pay, pay for all time allegedly worked but not compensated, commissions, business expenses and all other claims of any kind for wages, penalties, interests, costs and attorneys’ fees arising from the alleged violation of any provision of common law, California law and/or Federal law which were or could have been raised as part of the -8NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Named Plaintiffs’ claims, including but not limited to claims under California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 204, 206.5, 210, 218, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 551, 552, 558, 1182, 1194, 1197, 1198, 2698, 2699, 2699.5, 2802 and Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. except as to such rights or claims as may be created by this Agreement occurring during the Class Period. Class Period is the period of time from January 27, 2006 through June 30, 2010. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to waive any right that is not subject to waiver by private agreement, including without limitation any claims arising under state unemployment insurance or workers’ compensation laws. This settlement and release shall be binding on all Class Members and Parties, whether or not they submit a claim form or receive a payment pursuant to this Settlement unless they opt out of the Settlement. The effect of the Settlement and the Release extends to 8X8 and its officers, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and others, as more fully described in the Settlement Agreement (“Releasees”) You will also waive all rights and benefits afforded by California Civil Code section 1542. Section 1542 provides: “A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.” VIII. FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING.

19 The Santa Clara County Superior Court will hold a hearing in Department 1, located 20 at 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, on ___________, 2011, at [TIME], to 21 determine whether the settlement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and 22 adequate (“Final Fairness Hearing”). The Court also will be asked to approve Settlement 23 Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees costs and the Service Payments to be paid to the 24 Plaintiffs. Settlement Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of 25 expenses will be on file with the Court no later than the date the Notice is mailed to the 26 Class, and the motion will be scheduled to be heard by the Court at the Final Fairness 27 Hearing, and will be available for review after that date. The hearing may be continued 28 -9NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

without further notice to the Settlement Class. It is not necessary for you to appear at this hearing unless you object to the proposed settlement and you have timely filed an objection with the Court. IX. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

The above is a summary of the basic terms of the settlement. For the precise terms and conditions of the settlement, you should consult the complete Settlement Agreement, which is on file with the Clerk of the Court. The pleadings and other records in this Litigation, including the Settlement Agreement, may be examined at any time during regular business hours at the Office of the Clerk of the Orange Superior Court, 751 West Santa Ana Boulevard, Santa Ana, California 92701. Please put your social security number on all correspondence to Settlement Class Counsel and to the Claims Administrator. If you move after receiving this notice, or if it was incorrectly addressed, please provide your correct address to the Settlement Administrator, Gilardi & Co. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS. ALL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR.

- 10 NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT B

[CLAIM FORM]

-2-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

CLAIM FORM THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE POST MARKED NO LATER THAN _______________, 2011. YOU MUST SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM TO BE PAID. I. CLAIMANT IDENTIFICATION: Name (Print): Street Address: City, State, Zip Code: Residence Telephone Number: [PRE-PRINTED] [PRE-PRINTED] [PRE-PRINTED] [PRE-PRINTED]

Social Security Number: [PRE-PRINTED] (The Internal Revenue Service requires this information. Failure to provide it will result in the rejection of your claim.) II. EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION: 1. Were you employed by 8X8, Inc. as a Sales Representatives, Account Managers and/or Account Executives and classified as “exempt” from overtime for one or more weeks during the period January 27, 2006 and June 30, 2010? YES________ NO_________ If you answered “NO” you are not included in the class that is the subject of this lawsuit, and you should not further complete or return this Claim Form. 2. 8X8, Inc.’s personnel records state that the dates you were employed as an exempt a Sales Representative, Account Manager and/or Account Executive qualifying you for inclusion as a member of the Settlement Class are ________[PRE-PRINTED]__________. Are the dates listed here correct? YES________ NO_________ If you marked “NO” to question no. 2, please attach documentation which supports your belief. Failure to provide supporting documentation of the dates you held a position qualifying you for inclusion as a member of the Settlement Class may result in your dispute being rejected.

III.

SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION OF COURT: Claimant (the undersigned) submits this Claim Form under the terms of the Proposed Settlement described in the Notice of Class Action Settlement and Final Fairness Hearing. Claimant also submits to the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara County Superior Court with respect to Claimant’s claim as a class member and for purposes of enforcing the release of

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

claims set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The full and precise terms of the proposed settlement are contained in the “Class Action Settlement Agreement” filed with the court. Claimant further acknowledges that Claimant is bound by and subject to the terms of any judgment that may be entered in this class action. Claimant agrees to furnish additional information to support this claim if required to do so. IV. RELEASE OF CLAIMS In consideration of this settlement, I hereby waive, fully release and forever discharge 8X8, Inc. and the other Releasees from any and all claims, debts, liabilities, demands, obligations, damages, action or causes of action of any kind, whether known or unknown, which have been or could have been asserted against 8X8 and/or the Releasees arising out of or related to all claims for wages, overtime pay, pay for all time allegedly worked but not compensated, commissions, business expenses and all other claims of any kind for wages, penalties, interests, costs and attorneys’ fees arising from the alleged violation of any provision of common law, California law and/or Federal law which were or could have been raised as part of the Named Plaintiffs’ claims, including but not limited to claims under California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 204, 206.5, 210, 218, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 551, 552, 558, 1182, 1194, 1197, 1198, 2698, 2699, 2699.5, 2802 and Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. except as to such rights or claims as may be created by this Agreement occurring during the Class Period For purposes of this Agreement,

“Releasees” shall mean 8x8, its affiliates, subsidiaries, parent, successors-ininterest, and assigns, and all of their present, former and future officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, attorneys, insurers, consultants, contractors, customers, vendors and representatives.. Nothing in this Agreement
shall be construed to waive any right that is not subject to waiver by private agreement, including without limitation any claims arising under state unemployment insurance or workers’ compensation laws.

I understand and agree that this is a full, complete and final general release of any and all claims described as aforesaid, to the fullest extent permitted by law, and agree that it shall apply to all unknown, unanticipated, unsuspected and undisclosed claims, demands, liabilities, actions or causes of action, as well as those which are now known, anticipated, suspected or disclosed, as described in the preceding paragraph above. I am aware of the contents of Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California, and that section and the benefits thereof are hereby expressly waived. Section 1542 reads as follows:
A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor. V. NO RETALIATION

Defendant will not retaliate against any person because he or she submits a Claim Form in connection with this settlement. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing statements are true, correct, and complete. Executed this ____________day of _____________, 2011, at ____________________, __________. (month) (year) (city) (state) ____________________________________ Signature of Claimant
2

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

Name: _____________________________________________________________________ (Print) Last First Middle Reminder checklist: 1. Sign and date directly above. 2. Keep a copy for your records. 3. Send Proof of Claim Form via first-class mail to: 8X8 Overtime Settlement c/o Gilardi and Company LLC ______________________ ______________________ 4. Make sure that the Proof of Claim is post-marked no later than by _____________, 2011.

3

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT C [PROPOSED ORDER OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT]

-3-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: The Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement by Plaintiffs Nikki Meierdiercks, Karin Flavetta, and Frank Torres (“Plaintiffs”) in the above-entitled matter came on before this Court on ________________, 2011. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, appeared for Plaintiffs and the putative Class; Simpson, Garrity, Innes & Jacuzzi -1[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

NIKKI MEIERDIERCKS, an individual; KARIN FLAVETTA, an individual; FRANK TORRES, an individual; on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. 8X8, INC.; and Does 1 to 10,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 30-2009-00317275 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Date: __________________ Time: ______________ Dept.: 1 Judge: Hon. James Kleinberg

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

appeared on behalf of Defendant 8X8, Inc. (“Defendant”). After reviewing and considering the Class Action Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities, the Declaration of Kyle Nordrehaug, the proposed Notice and Claim Form, and good cause appearing thereof, the Court makes the following findings of fact and law:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement is hereby GRANTED. 1. The Court grants preliminary approval to the Class Action Settlement

Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”). The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable and preliminarily approves the terms of the settlement including the amount of the Settlement Total, the attorneys’ fees, the payment of litigation expenses, and the Service Payments. 2. The Court approves, as to form and content, the Notice of Proposed

Settlement of Class Action in the form attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement and the Claim Form attached as Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement. The Court approves the procedure for Class Members to opt out and to object as set forth in the Notice. The Court approves the Election Not to Participate in Settlement in the form attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit F. 3. The provisions of the Settlement Agreement, and the provisions of the Class

Notice and the Claim Form, are deemed incorporated herein as if expressly set forth, and have the full force and effect of an Order of this Court. Upon final approval of the Settlement Agreement at or following the Final Approval Hearing, all provisions of the Settlement Agreement shall be deemed incorporated herein as if expressly set forth, and shall have the full force and effect of an Order of this Court. All terms defined therein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 4. The notice to be provided as set forth in the Settlement Agreement is hereby

found to be the best means practicable of providing notice under the circumstances, and, -2[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

when completed, shall constitute due and sufficient notice of the class action, proposed settlement, and the final approval hearing to all persons affected by and/or authorized to participate in the settlement. 5. It is ordered that the Class described in the Settlement Agreement is

conditionally certified for settlement purposes only. 6. 7. The Court appoints Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as Class Counsel. The Court approves the selection of Gilardi & Co. to be the Claims

Administrator. The expenses of the Claims Administrator shall be payable from the Settlement Total as defined in the Settlement Agreement. 8. A Final Fairness Hearing shall be heard in Department 1 of this Court on

__________, 2011 at __:__ p.m. to determine whether the proposed settlement of the Action should be finally approved by the Court and the amount of attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and service awards that should be awarded in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. 9. No later than thirty (30) days before the Final Fairness Hearing, Plaintiffs

shall submit their Motion for Final Approval Class Action Settlement to Department 1 of this Court. 10. After entry by the Court of this Order, and as provided for in the Settlement

Agreement, the Parties shall cause to be mailed by the Settlement Administrator a Notice of Class Action Settlement in the form attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement, a Claim Form in the form attached as Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement; and an Election Not to Participate in Settlement in the form attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit F. Prior to the Final Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel shall file with the Court declaration of due diligence setting forth its compliance with the procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Compliance with these procedures shall constitute due and sufficient notice to Class Members of the pendency of the Litigation, the certification of the Class, the Settlement Agreement, this Order for Notice of Class Settlement, and the Final Fairness Hearing, and shall satisfy the requirements of due process. -3[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

11.

Class Members who object to approval of the Settlement Agreement may

appear at the Final Fairness Hearing to object to the Settlement Agreement; provided, however, that each such objecting Class Member shall file with this Court and serve upon Class Counsel and Defense Counsel written notice of his or her intent to object along with any briefs, exhibits, and any other supporting materials, setting forth all his or her objections to the settlement in accordance with the Objection procedure set forth in the Settlement Agreement and in the Notice of Class Settlement. 12. No Class Member shall be entitled to be heard at the Final Fairness Hearing,

and no papers or briefs of objecting Class Members shall be received or considered by the Court, unless that Class Member has timely submitted the written notice of intent to object and supporting papers, or unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 13. Any Class Member who fails to submit timely written notice of intent to

object and supporting papers shall be deemed to have waived and shall be forever foreclosed from questioning or making any objection to the Settlement Agreement, except by special permission of the Court, and shall be subject to and bound by the Settlement Agreement. 14. Any additional documentation or memoranda which Class Counsel or

Counsel for Defendant wishes the Court to consider to support the settlement or Settlement Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees, including any documentation or memoranda that the Parties wish to file in response to any objections to the settlement or request for attorneys’ fees made by any Objecting Settlement Class Members, shall be filed with the Court no later than five (5) court days before the date of the Final Fairness Hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ________________ __________________________________________ THE HONORABLE JAMES KLEINBERG JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STATE OF CALIFORNIA

-4[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT D [PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT]

-4-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs’ motion for an order finally approving the Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) and for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs duly came on for hearing on ____________, 2011 before the Honorable James Kleinberg, Judge of the above entitled Court. Kyle Nordrehaug of the law firm of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs Nikki Meierdiercks, Karin Flavetta, and Frank -1[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

NIKKI MEIERDIERCKS, an individual; KARIN FLAVETTA, an individual; FRANK TORRES, an individual; on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. 8X8, INC.; and Does 1 to 10,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 30-2009-00317275 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT Date: __________________ Time: ______________ Dept.: 1 Judge: Hon. James Kleinberg

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Torres (“Plaintiffs”). Jamie Rudman of the law firm of Simpson, Garrity, Innes & Jacuzzi appeared on behalf of Defendant 8X8, Inc. (“Defendant”). I. FINDINGS Based on the oral and written argument and evidence presented in connection with the motion, the Court makes the following findings: Preliminary Approval of the Class Settlement On _____ __, 2011, the Court granted preliminary approval of a class wide settlement. At this same time the court approved certification of a provisional settlement class. Notice to Settlement Class 1. In compliance with the Preliminary Approval Order, class notice was mailed by first class mail to class members at their last known addresses on or about _____________, 2011. Mailing of class notice and claim form at their last known addresses was the best notice practicable under the circumstances and was reasonably calculated to communicate actual notice of the litigation and the proposed settlement to members of the Settlement Class. 2. The deadline for opting out or objecting was _____________, 2011.

There was an adequate interval between notice and deadline to permit class members to choose what to do and act on their decision. ____ class members opted out. Fairness Of Settlement 1. The Settlement Agreement is entitled to a presumption of fairness.

(Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1801.) a. The settlement was reached through arm's-length bargaining

between the parties during a mediation before David Rotman, a respected mediator of wage and hour class actions. There has been no collusion between the parties in reaching the proposed settlement. b. Plaintiffs’ investigation and discovery have been more than -2[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

sufficient to allow the court and counsel to act intelligently. c. Counsel for both parties are experienced in similar

employment class action litigation. All counsel recommended approval of the Settlement Agreement. d. The percentage of objectors is small. Zero (0) objections

were received. _______ requests for exclusion have been received. 2. The consideration to be given to the Settlement Class under the terms

of the Settlement Agreement is reasonable considering the strengths and weaknesses of the claims asserted in this action and is fair, reasonable and adequate compensation for the dismissal of this action and release of class members’ claims, given the uncertainties and risks of the litigation and the delays which would ensue from continued prosecution of the action. 3. The Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable and in the

best interests of the Settlement Class and its members. Attorneys’ Fees 1. The Settlement Agreement provides for an award of up to

$156,250.00 as Class Counsel Fees Payment and up to $25,000 for Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment in this action, subject to the Court’s approval. Class Counsel requests an award of $___________ as Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment, and $156,250.00 for attorneys’ fees. 2. An award of $156,250.00 for Class Counsel Fees Payment and

$________________ for Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment, is reasonable, in light of the contingent nature of Settlement Class Counsel's fee, the hours worked by Settlement Class Counsel, and the results achieved by Settlement Class Counsel. The requested attorneys’ fee award represents twenty-five percent (25%) of the Settlement Total which is reasonable and on the low end of the benchmark for fee awards in common fund cases. Service Award 3. The Settlement Agreement provides for a service award of up to -3[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

$5,000.00 for each of the Plaintiffs, subject to Court's discretion. The amount of the payment is reasonable in light of the risks and burdens undertaken by a named plaintiff in class action litigation and the services rendered by the Plaintiffs to obtain this Settlement. II ORDERS Based on the foregoing findings, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 1. The Class is certified for the purposes of settlement only. The Class

is hereby defined to include: All persons who worked in California for 8x8, Inc. for one or more weeks between January 27, 2006 and June 30, 2010 as Sales Representatives, Account Managers and/or Account Executives and who were classified as “exempt” from overtime. 2. All persons who meet the foregoing definition are members of the

Class, except for those individuals who filed a timely request for exclusion from the class. 3. The Settlement Agreement is hereby approved as fair, reasonable,

adequate, and in the best interest of the Class and its members. 4. Class Counsel are awarded $156,250.00 as Class Counsel Fees

Payment and $__________ for Class Counsel Litigation Expenses Payment Attorneys’ Fees. Class Counsel shall not seek or obtain any other compensation or reimbursement from Defendant, Plaintiffs or members of the Class. 5. is approved. 6. A judgment of dismissal of this action with prejudice shall be The payment of a $5,000.00 service award for each of the Plaintiffs

entered. The judgment shall bind each member of the Class. The judgment shall operate as a full release and discharge of claims. All rights to appeal the judgment have been waived. The judgment and final order shall have a res judicata effect and bar each Plaintiff and each Class Member who has not been excluded from the Settlement Class from bringing any action asserting “Released Claims” as that term is defined in the Settlement Agreement. -4[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

7.

Notice of entry of this order and the ensuing final judgment shall be

given to Class Counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs and all members of the Settlement Class. It shall not be necessary to send notice of entry of this order or the ensuing final judgment to individual members of the Class. The time for any appeal by any member of the Class shall run from service of notice of entry of the order and judgment on Class Counsel and Defendant. 8. After entry of final judgment, the Court shall retain jurisdiction to

construe, interpret, implement, and enforce the Settlement Agreement, to hear and resolve any contested challenge to a claim for settlement benefits, and to supervise and adjudicate any dispute arising from or in connection with distribution settlement benefits. Dated: ________________ __________________________________________ THE HONORABLE JAMES KLEINBERG JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STATE OF CALIFORNIA

-5[PROPOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT E [PROPOSED JUDGMENT]

-5-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
11 12 13 14 15

NIKKI MEIERDIERCKS, an individual; KARIN FLAVETTA, an individual; FRANK TORRES, an individual; on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

Case No. 110cv162413 [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

16

vs.
17

8X8, INC.; and Does 1 to 10,
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Dept.: 1 Judge: Hon. James Kleinberg Defendants.
The parties having settled this action and the Court having entered a Final Approval Order and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDICATED AND DECREED THAT: 1. This entire action, including all claims asserted on behalf of Plaintiffs Nikki

Meierdiercks, Karin Flavetta, and Frank Torres (“Plaintiffs”) individually and on behalf of the Class, be, and it hereby is, dismissed with prejudice.

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2.

The Court shall retain jurisdiction to construe, interpret, implement, and

enforce the Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”), to hear and resolve any contested challenge to a claim for settlement benefits, and to supervise and adjudicate any dispute arising from or in connection with distribution settlement benefits. 3. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, except as otherwise

provided in the Settlement Agreement and the Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. 4. Plaintiff and each member of the “Class” have released and are hereby

permanently enjoined and restrained from filing or prosecuting any “Released Claims” against the Defendant 8X8, Inc. (“Defendant”) or any of the “Releasees.” 5. As used in paragraph 4 above, the quoted terms have the meaning set forth

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Section III(F) of the Settlement Agreement. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: ________________ ________________________________________________ -2[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

below: a. “Class” means: “All persons who worked in California for 8x8, Inc.

for one or more weeks between January 27, 2006 and June 30, 2010 as Sales Representatives, Account Managers and/or Account Executives and who were classified as “exempt” from overtime” b. “Released Claims” mean and include those claims as defined in

c.

“Releasees” means 8x8, Inc., its affiliates, subsidiaries, parent,

successors-in-interest, and assigns, and all of their present, former and future officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, attorneys, insurers, consultants, contractors, customers, vendors and representatives. LET JUDGMENT BE FORTHWITH ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

THE HONORABLE JAMES KLEINBERG JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STATE OF CALIFORNIA

-3[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT F ELECTION NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT

-6-

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

ELECTION NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT IF YOU WISH TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST COMPLETE, SIGN, DATE, AND RETURN THIS FORM TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: 8x8 Overtime Settlement Gilardi & Co. PO Box ____________ San Rafael, CA 94__________ YOU SHOULD SEND THIS FORM BY FIRST-CLASS UNITED STATES MAIL. IT MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN _____________, 2011. I hereby elect to opt out and exclude myself from the Class in the class action “Nikki Meirdiercks, et al. v. 8x8, Inc.” Case No. 110cv162413, (the “Action”), filed by Plaintiffs against Defendant on January 27, 2010 in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara. I confirm that I have received the Notice of Class Action Settlement in the Action. I have decided NOT to participate in the proposed settlement. I understand that, by excluding myself from the Settlement, I am not entitled to receive any payment from the Settlement.

Dated:

_____________________________________________ Signature _____________________________________________ Type or print name _____________________________________________ All other names used during employment at 8X8, Inc. _____________________________________________ Street address _____________________________________________ City, state, and zip code _____________________________________________ Telephone number _____________________________________________ Social security number

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

DECLARATION OF KYLE NORDREHAUG

EXHIBIT #2

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik (AV) 2255 Calle Clara, La Jolla, California 92037 Tel: (858) 551-1223 Fax: (885) 551-1232 FIRM RESUME Areas of Practice: Consumer and Securities Class Action, Wage and Hour Class Action, Civil Litigation, Transactional Law, Business Litigation, Products Liability and Construction Defects.

ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES Norman B. Blumenthal Partner Practice Areas: Consumer and Securities Class Action, Civil Litigation, Wage and Hour Class Actions, 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., 1948 Kyle R. Nordrehaug Partner Practice Areas: Consumer and Securities Class Actions, Wage and Hour Class Actions, Civil Litigation Admitted: 1999, California Member: State Bar of California, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Court of Appeals Educated: University of California at Berkeley (B.A., 1994); University of San Diego School of Law (J.D. 1999) Born: San Diego, California, 1972 Aparajit Bhowmik Partner Practice Areas: Civil Litigation; Consumer Class Actions, Wage and Hour 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, 1956

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

REPORTED CASES In re Tobacco Cases II, 41 Cal. 4th 1257 (2007); Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court, 24 Cal. 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); 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); 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); 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.); 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. Superior Court, 117 Cal. App. 4th 380 (2004); 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 (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*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); 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., 2009 U.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 Marine Fisheries 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. Ortho Mattress, 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); Sussex v. Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29503 (D. Nev. 2009); Picus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 256 F.R.D. 651 (D. Nev. 2009); Tull v. Stewart Title of Cal., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14171 (S.D. Cal. 2009); Keshishzadeh v. Gallagher, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46805 (S.D. Cal. 2010); In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL Docket No. 1850 (All Cases), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94603 (D.N.J. 2008); Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 160 Cal. App. 4th 638 (2008); Rezec v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., 116 Cal. App. 4th 135 (2004); Badillo v. Am. Tobacco Co., 202 F.R.D. 261 (D. Nev. 2001).

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

LEAD COUNSEL - CLASS ACTION Adkins v. Washington Mutual Bank - Class Certification Granted, Settled San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. GIC819546 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 & Nordrehaug Akers v. The San Diego Union Tribune - In Litigation San Diego County Superior Court, Case No 37-2010-00088571 Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Wage and Hour Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group 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 Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 340107 Nature of Case: Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & 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 - Settled Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00317275 Nature of Case: Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations for Priority Banking Officers 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: Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Arias, Ozzello & Gignac; 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

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

Bova v. Washington Mutual Bank / JP Morgan Chase - In 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 & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Briseno v. American Savings Bank - Class Certification Granted, Settled Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 774773 Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Force Ordered Insurance Overcharges Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Chavez & Gertler Brueske v. Welk Resorts - In Litigation San Diego Superior Court, Case No 37-2010-00086460 Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Wage Hour Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group 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. - Class Certification Granted, Settled Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC402239 Nature of Case: Labor Code Violations and Expense Reimbursement under Labor Code 2802 Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; 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 & Nordrehaug Cohen v. Bosch Tool - Settled San Diego Superior Court, Case No. GIC 853562 Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices - Deceptive Advertising - Made in the USA violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug Collins v. Galpin Motors - “In Litigation” Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 343915 Nature of Case: Overtime Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug Comstock v. Washington Mutual Bank - Class Certification Granted, Settled San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. GIC820803 Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Force Order Insurance Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug Conley v. Norwest - Settled

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. N73741 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 & 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 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 & 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,(In Re Tobacco Cases II) – Class Certification Granted, Review before the California Supreme Court Affirmed Summary Judgment San Diego Superior Court, Case No. JCCP 4042 Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Unlawful, Deceptive and Unfair Marketing of Cigarettes to Children Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Thorsnes, Bartolotta & Mcguire; Chavez & Gertler Delmare v. Sungard Higher Education - Settled U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 07-cv-1801 Nature of Case: Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code Violations, FLSA Plaintiff’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 05-1031 Nature of Case: Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Wynne Law Firm; Thierman Law Firm P.C. Dilag v. Ideal Products - In Litigation San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2009-00091791 Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices - Deceptive Advertising - Made in the USA violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Dirienzo v. Dunbar Armored - In Litigation U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-2745 Nature of Case: Expense Reimbursement under Labor Code 2802, Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Downtown Inns v. Pac Bell - Settled California Public Utilities Commission

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

Nature of Case: Illegal Charge Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Sullivan Hill. Enger v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan - Settled U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-1670 Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code Violations, FLSA Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Fallah v. Cingular Wireless - Settled Orange County Superior Court / U.S. District Court, Central District of California Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Unfair Rebate Program Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug Fierro v. Chase Manhattan - Class Certification Granted, Settled San Diego Superior Court, Case No. GIN033490 Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Bank Interest Overcharges Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug Finch v. Lamps Plus, (Lamps Plus Credit Transaction Cases) - Settled San Diego Superior Court, Case No. JCCP 4532 Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Violation of Civil Code 1747.08 Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug Fletcher v. Verizon - In Litigation U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-1736 Nature of Case: Employee Overtime, Labor Code Violations, FLSA Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Francisco v. Diebold U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-1889 Nature of Case: Employee Overtime, Labor Code Violations, FLSA Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group 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 Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 338907 Nature of Case: Employee Claim, Overtime Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal and Nordrehaug Gibson v. World Savings - Judgment for Class after Appeal - Settled Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 762321

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Force Ordered Insurance 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 Goodman v. Platinum - In Litigation U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. 09-cv-00957 Nature of Case: Violation of Nevada and Federal law in the sale of Condo/Hotel units, ILSA Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Gerard & Associates Greer v. Fleet Mortgage - Settled San Diego Superior Court Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practices-Bank Overcharges Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug Gruender v. First American Title - Settled Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 06 CC 00197 Nature of Case: Title Officer Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group; Wagner & Jones; Cornwell & Sample Gujjar v. Consultancy Services Limited - In Litigation Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2010-00365905 Nature of Case: IT Analyst Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Guzman v. GNC, Inc. - “In Litigation” U.S. District Court, Central District of California Case No. CV 06-2326 MMM FMOx Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Illegal Product Sales Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O’Neill & Mullis, P.A. Guzman v. Muscletech. - “In Litigation” U.S. District Court, Central District of California Case No. Case No. CV06-2377 CAS JTLx Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Illegal Product Sales Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & 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

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; The Lewis Law Firm Handler v. Oppenheimer Los Angeles Superior Court, Civil Action No. BC343542 Nature of Case: Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & 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 - Class Certification Granted, Settled District Court for the State of Nevada Nature of Case: Auto Warranty Fraud Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Greco, Traficante & Edwards; Gerard & Associates Hollander v. Vitamin Shoppe Industries - “In Litigation” Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.L.A.S.C. Case No. BC311446 Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Illegal Product Sales Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Thanasides, Zalkin & Acero; Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O’Neill & Mullis, P.A. Jefferson v. Pepsi - In Litigation Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00180102 Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group 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 & Nordrehaug; Robert C. Fellmeth, Esq. Kennedy v. Natural Balance - Dismissal Reversed on Appeal, In Litigation U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Remanded to San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2007-00066201 Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Deceptive Advertising, Made in the USA violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Keshishzadeh v. Arthur J. Gallagher Service Co. - Class Certification Granted, In Litigation U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-0168 Nature of Case: Claims Representative Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations 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

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

Kinney v. AIG Domestic Claims / Chartis - In Litigation U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:10-cv-00399 Nature of Case: Claims Representative Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Kove v. North American Title Co. - In Litigation Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC426111 Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Failure to Pay Commissions Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Kove v. Old Republic Title - In Litigation Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG09477437 Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Failure to Pay Commissions Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Langille v. EMC - Settled U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-0168 Nature of Case: Software Engineer Misclassification, FLSA, Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Levine v. Groeniger - Settled Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG09476193 Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Linder v. OCWEN (In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Servicing Litig.) - In Litigation U.S. District Court, Central District California, Case No. 07cv501 U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. Illinois, Case No. MDL 1604 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. BC351983 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: Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group Maitland v. Marriott - In Litigation U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08-cv-0795 Nature of Case: Chef Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group 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

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

Mann v. NEC Electronics America - Settled Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 109CV132089 Nature of Case: Meal and Rest Break Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group, Qualls & Workman Mann v. Vital Pharmaceuticals - “In Litigation” Los Angeles Superior Court, 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. 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 Mathies v. Union Bank - In Litigation San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-10-498077 Nature 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 - 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

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug Meierdiercks v. 8x8, Inc. - In Litigation Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 110CV162413 Nature of Case: Sales Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Morse v. Marie Callender Pie Shop - In Litigation U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 09-cv-1305 Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Muntz v. Lowe’s HIW - Settled San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. GIC880932 Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Violation of Civil Code 1747.08 Plaintiff's Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug Nakagawa v. LPJ Pharmaceuticals - “In Litigation” Los Angeles Superior Court 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 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 - Settled 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, Affirmed by Supreme Court California Supreme Court Decision in Favor of Plaintiff San Diego Superior Court Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Lien Overcharges Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug Owen v. Robinsons May - Dismissed Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC355629 Nature of Case: Failure to Pay Earned Vacation, Violation of Labor Code 227.3 Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group; Clark & Markham

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

Pacheco v. Lexicon Marketing Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC 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, Made in the USA violations 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 Port v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group - Settled San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2007-00067538 Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group Proctor v. Ameriquest - Settled Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 06CC00108 Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, United Employees Law Group, Clark & Markham 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

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Morris & Associates, Pettersen & Bark Ramos v. Countrywide - 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 - Class Certification Granted, In Litigation San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Pettersen & Bark Ray v. Lawyers Title, Fidelity National, Commonwealth Land Title, Chicago Title - In Litigation Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2010-00359306 Nature of Case: Failure to Pay Severance Wages Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Pettersen & 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. - Decision on Appeal United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 08-55114 U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 05 CV 1876 JAH Nature of Case: Unfair Competition, Violation of Civil Code §1749.5 Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug Rezec v. Sony – Settled San Diego Superior Court Nature of Case: Fraudulent Advertising Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug, Prongay & Borderud; The Cifarelli Law Firm 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

Rix v. Lockheed Martin Corporation - In Litigation U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-2063 Nature of Case: Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code Violations, FLSA Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group 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 (Sleep Train Wage and Hour Cases) - In Litigation

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2008-00214586 San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. JCCP 4553 Nature of Case: Commission Sales Employee Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Sayaman v. Baxter Healthcare U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CV 10-1040 Nature of Case: Lab Technician Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Schulz v. Qualxserv, LLC / Worldwide Techservices U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 09-cv-0017 Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations, Expense Reimbursement Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; 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 Shiell v. County of Los Angeles - On Appeal Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC208583; [Related to]: BC208582 Nature of Case: Claim for Common Law Employment Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & 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 & 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; 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 Foundation Hospitals - Settled U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 08-cv-02353 Nature of Case: Kaiser Employee Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code Violations, FLSA Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Sones v. World Savings / Wachovia - Settled U.S. District Court, Norther District of California, Case No. 3:08-cv-04811 Nature of Case: Kaiser Employee Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code Violations, FLSA

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Sorensen v. Binions, Nature of Case: ERISA violation Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Gerard & Osuch Spradlin v. Trump - In Litigation U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. 2:08-cv-01428 Nature of Case: Securities Violations and Fraud in the sale of Condo/Hotel Units, ILSA Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Gerard & Associates; Burton Wiand, Esq.; Beck & Lee Steele v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan - Settled U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 07-5743 Nature of Case: Kaiser Employee Misclassification, Overtime, Labor Code Violations, FLSA Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Steroid Hormone Product Cases - Decision on Appeal in Favor of Plaintiff Los Angeles Superior Court, JCCP4363 Nature of Case: Unfair Competition - Sale of Illegal Products Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Clark & Markham; 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 in the sale of Condo/Hotel Units Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Gerard & Associates Sustersic v. International Paper Co. - In Litigation Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2009-00331538 Nature of Case: Failure to Pay Earned Vacation; Violation of Labor Code 227.3 Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Law Offices of William H. Steiner Tan v. California State Automobile Assn. - Class Certification Granted, Settled U.S. District Court, Central District California, Case No. 07cv1011 Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2008-00231219 Nature of Case: IT Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, United Employees Law Group Tauber v. Alaska Airlines, et al. - Settled Los Angeles Superior Court

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

Nature of Case: Unfair Business Practice - Employment Practices, Violation of Labor Code 450 Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug Trujillo v. LivHome - In Litigation Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2008-00100372 San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. JCCP4570 Nature of Case: Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Tull v. Stewart Title - Settled U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08-CV-1095 Nature of Case: Title Officer and Escrow Officer Misclassification, FLSA, Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Pettersen & Bark Van Gorp v. Ameriquest Mortgage/Deutsche Bank - Settled U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. SACV05-907 CJC (ANx) Nature of Case: 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. 08-04918 Nature of Case: Computer Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Weinman v. Midbar Condo Development (Las Vegas One) - In Litigation U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. 2:08-cv-00684 Nature of Case: Fraud in the sale of Condo/Hotel Units, ILSA Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Gerard & Associates 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: Sales Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Wietzke v. Costar Realty - Settled U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 09-cv-2743 Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corporation - In Litigation U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 3:09-cv-01669 Nature of Case: Computer Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

Wise v. Cubic - Settled U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08-cv-2315 Nature of Case: Employee Misclassification, Overtime and Labor Code Violations Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; United Employees Law Group Wilson v. D.R. Horton, U.S. District Court, Southern District California, Case No. 08-0592 Nature of Case: Antitrust Plaintiff’s Counsel: Blumenthal & Nordrehaug; Gerard & Associates 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 re Automobile Antitrust Cases

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

San Diego Superior Court, coordinated in San 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 In re Bank of America Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation - In Litigation U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, Case No. MDL 2138 Nature of Case: Employment Claims under FLSA and California Labor Code Plaintiff’s Co-Counsel: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Marlin & Saltzman; Stueve Siegel Hanson; United Employees Law Group 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. 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 Ridgewood Capital Management v. Gensia - Settled U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, #CV-92-1500H

E-FILED: Apr 8, 2011 8:00 AM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-10-CV-162413 Filing #G-30947

Plaintiffs’ Counsel: Barrack, Rodos & Bacine; Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox; Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf & Jones; Law Offices of Joseph H. Weiss; Kaufman, Malchman, Kaufman & Kirby; Sullivan Hill; Blumenthal & Nordrehaug Shurman v. Scimed - 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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful