join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Norm Blumenthal • Senior Attorney

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik • San Diego, California

Visibility and Networking

  blog  linkedin  facebook  twitter

Contact Information

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
2255 Calle Clara
San Diego, California 92037
phone 858-551-1223
fax  858-551-1232

Profile

Norman B. Blumenthal
San Diego, California,
Managing Partner
phone   858-952-1634
866-745-2949 (Toll Free)
fax   858-551-1232
email   Email Me

Background
Norman was born in Washington, D.C. on January 31, 1948. He received his B.A. from the University of Wisconsin in 1970 and then proceeded to earn his J.D. from the Loyola University of Chicago in 1973. He was admitted to the Bar in Illinois in 1973 and in California in 1976.
In 1973 and until 1975, Norman was a Law Clerk to Justice Thomas J. Moran of the Illinois Supreme Court. He has been an instructor of Oil and Gas Law at the California Western School of Law in 1981 and the University of San Diego School of Law in 1983. Norman served as President and Chairman of the Board of the San Diego Petroleum Club Inc. in 1985 to1986. In addition, he held the position of the Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel for the Brumark Corporation from 1980 to 1987.
One of California’s Most Experienced Class Action Attorneys
Norman is a California class action pioneer. For over two decades, he has been representing employees and consumers in California in class action lawsuits for the purpose of handling the next great case to champion justice in a world where business at the extremes takes unfair advantage of employees and consumers. In total, Norman has obtained over $1.3 Billion on behalf of employees and consumers. More importantly, he has ushered in good public policy for the benefit of all Californians everywhere.
As a result of Jordan v. Cal. DMV, on June 8, 2000, the California Governor signed two bills passed by the Legislature, which found and declared that approximately 1,700,000 vehicle owners paid a an unconstitutional smog impact fee imposed by California on out of state vehicles. This amounted to a $500 million in unconstitutional smog impact fees imposed on drivers. After interest, Norman helped settle this case for over $650 million dollars. Norman enabled over 1.7 million people get refunds for a smog impact fee that was unconstitutional.

Overtime Wage Violations are a Serious Problem in California
It is too easy for employees to assume that their paychecks reflect the true amount of hours they worked and money they earned. Employers are always trying to tighten margins and unfortunately one of the first places they look to do this is with the cost of labor. However, since businesses still need the labor, they in fact do not cut back on labor costs; instead, they simply start cheating employees out of the full amount of overtime wages they earn.
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik represents employees throughout California in lawsuits to collect unpaid overtime wages. The firm has the resources and experience to help employees fight back against illegal pay practices such as:

Employee?s being misclassified as exempt from overtime
Employee?s being misclassified as Independent Contractors
Employees working ?off the clock?
Employees being cheated out of mandatory, off-duty meal and rest breaks
Employees not being reimbursed for work-related expenses
Employees not being paid overtime at one and a half times their regular rate of pay for working hours in excess of eight in a workday or forty in a workweek
Unpaid vacation time and holiday time

Mutable Timekeeping Systems are Red Flags for Overtime Violations
In California, employers are required to give all non-exempt employees accurate itemized wage statements. These wage statements must include everything from the amount of time the employee works to the amount of money the employee makes for that particular time he or she is working.
Many employers don?t only fail to issue accurate itemized wage statements with all of this information. In fact, employers frequently fail to even have a timekeeping system that is capable of tracking all of the hours employees work. Some time tracking systems actually go as far as to not allow employees to record and report overtime hours worked. Employees are suppose to receive one and a half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight hours in a workday, forty hours in a workweek, or for the first eight hours on a seventh consecutive day. In addition, employees are entitled to receive two times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of twelve in a single workday and double the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight hours on a seventh consecutive workday. How can employers pay employees the proper amount of wages if there is not even a timekeeping system that is capable of tracking and recording all of the time these employees work? What?s more, some employers have a timekeeping system that takes time away from employees. For example, timekeeping systems that are subject to manipulation are problematic because managers and supervisors may be instructed by the company to reduce or erase the true amount of hours that employees work. In effect, employees are losing out on overtime wages and other wages that they earned through the performance of labor.

Misclassifying Employees as Exempt is Immoral and Illegal
The general presumption in California is that all employees are entitled to overtime compensation for working more than eight hours in a single day. They are also entitled to overtime compensation for working more than forty hours in a workweek under both federal and state laws. Businesses seek to avoid paying employees overtime wages by misclassifying them as exempt from overtime. It is the employer?s burden to prove that the employees are in fact exempt from overtime based on certain exemption tests, but employees rarely challenge their exempt classifications and therefore employers get away with these misclassifications. 
Here is a partial list of the types of employees that are regularly misclassified as exempt from overtime:
Employees performing manual labor
Employees performing clerical labor
Laboratory Technicians and managers
Computer Technicians
IT/IS Professionals
Managers and Supervisors
Security Guards
Armored Car Drivers and Guards
Waiters and Waitresses
Cable Technicians
Scientific Employees
Pharmaceutical Employees

Call 866-745-2949 to Learn About Your Employment Law Rights
If you think that your employer may have committed illegal overtime practices against you or your fellow employees, contact an experienced overtime wage attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today. We offer all employees free consultations. We also represent employees on a contingency basis, meaning that they never pay our attorneys a single dollar until and unless we recover money for them. We have the resources and experience to represent workers in individual and class action lawsuits throughout California communities such as San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Orange County, Oakland, Sacramento and Santa Clara.


Areas of Practice:
Employment Class Action Litigation
Civil Litigation
Consumer and Securities Class Action
Litigation Percentage:
100% of Practice Devoted to Litigation
Bar Admissions:
Illinois, 1973
California, 1976
Education:
Loyola University Chicago School of Law, Chicago, Illinois, 1973
J.D.


University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1970
B.A.


Representative Cases:
In re Tobacco Cases II, 41 Cal. 4th 1257 (2007)
Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court, 24 Cal. 4th 906 (2001)
Hall v. County of Los Angeles, 148 Cal. App. 4th 318 (2007)
Coshow v. City of Escondido, 132 Cal. App. 4th 687 (2005)
Daniels v. Philip Morris, 18 F.Supp 2d 1110 (S.D. Cal. 1998)
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)
Olszewski v. Scripps Health, 30 Cal. 4th 798 (2003)
Taiheiyo Cement Corp. v. Superior Court, 105 Cal.App. 4th 398 (2003)
McMeans v. Scripps Health, Inc., 100 Cal. App. 4th 507 (2002)
Ramos v. Countrywide Home Loans, 82 Cal.App. 4th 615 (2002)
Teyssier v. City of San Diego, 81 Cal.App. 4th 685
Rocker v. KPMG LLP, 148 P.3d 703 (Nev. Supreme 2006)
Rocker v. KPMG LLP, 2006 Nev. LEXIS 137 (Nev. Supreme 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., 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., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60344 (S.D. Cal. 2008)
Curry v. CTB McGraw-Hill, LLC, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 21486 (9th Cir. 2008)
Curry v. CTB McGraw-Hill, LLC, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5920, 97 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1888 (N.D. Cal. 2006)
Curry v. CTB McGraw-Hill, LLC, 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., 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)
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)
Sussex v. Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29503 (D. Nev. 2009)
Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 160 Cal. App. 4th 638 (2008)
PCO, Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, 150 Cal. App. 4th 384 (2007)
Rezec v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., 116 Cal. App. 4th 135 (2004)
Picus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23969 (D. Nev. 2009)
In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL Docket No. 1850 (All Cases), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94603 (D.N.J. 2008)
Kensington Capital Mgal. v. Oakley, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist LEXIS 385 (C.D. Cal. 1999)
Kensington Capital Mgal. v. Oakley, Inc., Fed.Sec.L.Rep. (CCH) P90, 411 (C.D. Cal. 1999)
Lister v. Oakley, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 384 (C.D Cal. 1999)
Lister v. Oakley, Inc., Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P90,409 (C.D Cal. 1999)
Classes/Seminars Taught:
Instructor, Oil and Gas Law, California Western School of Law, 1981


Instructor, Oil and Gas Law, University of San Diego School of Law, 1983


Professional Associations and Memberships:
San Diego County Bar Association
Member


Illinois State Bar Association
Member


American Bar Association
Member


State Bar of California
Member


Past Employment Positions:

Justice Thomas J. Moran of the Illinois Supreme Court, Law Clerk


San Diego Petroleum Club Inc., President, Board


San Diego Petroleum Club Inc., Chairman, Board, 1985 - 1986


Brumark Corporation, Chief Operating Officer, 1980 - 1987


Brumark Corporation, General Counsel, 1980 - 1987

Activities, Awards, Acknowledgments

In re Tobacco Cases II, 41 Cal. 4th 1257 (2007); Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court, 24 Cal. 4th 906 (2001); Hall v. County of Los Angeles, 148 Cal. App. 4th 318 (2007); Coshow v. City of Escondido, 132 Cal. App. 4th 687 (2005); Daniels v. Philip Morris, 18 F.Supp 2d 1110 (1998 S.D. Cal.); 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); Olszewski v. Scripps Health, 30 Cal. 4th 798 (2003); Taiheiyo Cement Corp. v. Superior Court, 105 Cal.App. 4th 398 (2003); McMeans v. Scripps Health, Inc., 100 Cal. App. 4th 507 (2002); Ramos v. Countrywide Home Loans, 82 Cal.App. 4th 615 (2002); Teyssier v. City of San Diego, 81 Cal.App. 4th 685; Rocker v. KPMG LLP, 148 P.3d 703; 2006 Nev. LEXIS 137 (Nev. Supreme 2006); McPhail v. First Command Fin. Planning, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26544 (S.D. Cal. March 30, 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. March 6, 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. February 13, 2009); Gabisan v. Pelican Prods., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1391 (S.D. Cal. January 9, 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., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60344 (S.D. Cal. 2008); Curry v. CTB McGraw-Hill, LLC, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 21486 (9th Cir. 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., 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); 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); Sussex v. Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29503 (D. Nev. 2009); Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 160 Cal. App. 4th 638 (2008); PCO, Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, 150 Cal. App. 4th 384 (2007); Rezec v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., 116 Cal. App. 4th 135 (2004); Picus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23969 (D. Nev. 2009); In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL Docket No. 1850 (All Cases), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94603 (D.N.J. 2008); 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).

Education

  • College: University of Madison-Wisconsin
  • Law School: Loyola, J.D.

Bar Admissions

California
Attorney Disclaimer - Attorney Advertising

Member Photo

Site Activity

Total Forum Posts: 0 (View Posts)
Workipedia Contributions: 0
Profile Views: 1475
Last Login: October 14, 2010

Practice Areas

• Age Discrimination
• Class Action
• Employee Benefits
• Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
• Family and Medical Leave (FMLA)
• Labor Law
• Pension Rights
• Retaliation
• Sex Discrimination
• Sexual Harassment
• Unemployment
• Unfair Labor Practices
• Wage and Hour Laws
• Wrongful Discharge