310-396-7714|info@HelmerFriedman.com
FacebookYouTubeMastodonLinkedInInstagramRedditTumblrTribelSubstack Notes

About Staff

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Staff has created 164 blog entries.

U.S. Remodelers Class Action

U.S. District Court preliminarily approves $1.5 million class action settlement. To see a copy of the Court’s Notice of Class Action Settlement, Claim Form and Procedures, Exclusion Procedures, and Final Approval of Settlement Hearing, click here.  If you are a current or former Sales Associate or Manager of U.S. Remodelers, Inc. (U.S. Home Services) and/or U.S. Home Systems, Inc. who was employed in California at any time between the dates of July 3, 2003 and August 24, 2009, you are a member of the class and should have received a copy of the Court’s Notice.

If you have not received this document, please contact the Claims Administrator as soon as possible to request copy of this document and the Claim Form:

U.S. Remodelers Litigation
c/o CPT Group, Inc.
16630 Aston Street
Irvine, California 92606
Toll free number: (888) 844-3063

In order to make a claim and potentially receive a settlement award, you must must complete and return the Claim Form you should have received, which must be post-marked no later than November 7, 2009. If you fail to complete and return the Claim Form within the foregoing time, you will be barred from participating in the settlement. To see a copy of the Claim Form, click here.

March 20, 2008 – Counsel for plaintiffs seeking witnesses and evidence in lawsuit against U.S. Remodelers.   Click here to fill out Questionnaire (pdf) or (Word).

The law firm of Helmer • Friedman LLP represents plaintiffs in a potential class action lawsuit against U.S. Remodelers, Inc. and its parent corporation, U.S. Home Systems, Inc. The lawsuit seeks to recover: (1) deductions that were unlawfully taken from the commissions earned by California Sales Associates from July 3, 2003, to the present time; and (2) reimbursements for expenses incurred by California Sales Associates during the same time period.

The lawsuit alleges that U.S. Remodelers unlawfully required that its California Sales Associates “insure” the company against business losses and alleged “overhead” expenses by deducting two types of losses and expenses from the employees’ earned commissions. First, the lawsuit alleges that U.S. Remodelers deducted a co-called “administration” or “permit” fee (typically in the amount of $250.00) from salespersons’ commissions. Second, the lawsuit alleges that U.S. Remodelers deducted amounts from each California Sales Associate’s commission when they under-measured the customer’s kitchen or other area to be re-faced or made other mistakes.

The lawsuit also alleges that U.S. Remodelers failed to reimburse its California Sales Associates for the expenses they incurred in the course of performing their job duties and responsibilities including, among other expenses, the following:

  1. Home Depot Uniforms – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates purchased shirts and other items of clothing with The Home Depot name or logo for which they have not been reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
  2. Home Depot Business Cards – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates purchased business cards with The Home Depot name or logo for which they were not reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
  3. Home Depot Thank You Note Cards – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates purchased Thank You Note Cards with The Home Depot name or logo for which they were not reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
  4. Fax Machine and Laser/Ink Jet Cartridges – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates purchased a fax machine and/or laser/ink jet cartridges for which they were not reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
  5. Copy Machine/Ink Cartridges and/or Copying Costs – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates purchased a copy machine and/or spent money to make copies of documents for which they were not reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
  6. Computer and Internet Connection – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates purchased a computer and maintained an internet connection for which they were not reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
  7. Cell Phone and Cellular Service – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates purchased a cell phone for which they were not reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
  8. Overnight Delivery Service Costs – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates incurred costs and expenses using overnight delivery services such as FedEx for which they were not reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.
  9. Pens, Paper, Envelopes, and Other Office Supplies – The lawsuit alleges that some California Sales Associates purchased pens, paper, envelopes, and other offices supplies for which they were not reimbursed in violation of Labor Code Sections 450 and 2802.

U.S. Remodelers has denied liability in this matter. Currently, the parties are still in the process of investigating the allegations made in this lawsuit.  As part of our investigation, we hope to obtain information from as many potential class members as possible. Toward that purpose, we have prepared a questionnaire that can provide us with information about the allegations made in the lawsuit.

Click here to fill out Questionnaire (pdf) or (Word).

By filling out this questionnaire and returning it you can provide vital information to us that will help obtain a favorable settlement in this matter or support our motion for class certification if the case does not settle.

If you would like to obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your rights, or if you have questions about the Questionnaire, please call attorney Greg Helmer at 310-396-7714.   August 17, 2007 – Counsel for U.S. Remodelers, Landegger Baron & Lavenant, remove the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.  For a copy of the Notice of Removal, Learn More…   August 3, 2007 – Helmer Friedman LLP files a First Amended Complaint For Damages and Injunctive Relief.  For a copy of the First Amended Complaint For Damages and Injunctive. Learn More…

July 3, 2007 – Helmer Friedman LLP files a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court against U.S. Remodelers, Inc. and U.S. Home Systems, Inc. arising from their alleged unlawful wage and hour practice of requiring that their employees “insure” the companies against business losses and alleged “overhead” expenses by deducting such losses and expenses from their employees’ earned commissions.  The class action lawsuit also alleges that the companies unlawfully forced their employees to incur various business expenses including purchasing various goods bearing The Home Depot insignia and logo from The Home Depot but refused to reimburse their employees for such expenditures.

This is an Attorney Solicitation from Gregory D. Helmer and Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman, LLP.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

2018-04-12T13:46:00-08:00September 25th, 2009|class actions, employment law, Misclassified Independent Contractors|Comments Off on U.S. Remodelers Class Action
Read More

Poisoned Pet Food Lawsuit

Contaminated Pet Food – Helmer Friedman LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit

March 27, 2007, Los Angeles, California – Helmer Friedman LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Menu Foods, Nutro Products, Inc., and PETCO – the manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of the pet food allegedly linked to the deaths and severe kidney problems of pets who consumed the food.

Poisoned pet food class action lawsuit filed Helmer Friedman LLP.
 
 

 

June 2007 Update
In addition to our class action lawsuit (Grady, et al v. Menu Foods et al), approximately 120 other class action lawsuits have been filed around the Country as a result of the contaminated pet food. On May 31, 2007, a Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) hearing took place in Las Vegas, Nevada to determine what form these lawsuits should take (e.g., whether they should be consolidated into one large lawsuit) and, if so, in what court they should proceed. We had asked the MDL panel of judges to consolidate all of these related lawsuits into a single action in federal court in Los Angeles, California.

On June 19, 2007, the MDL panel issued its order transferring our case and all related pet food cases to the U.S. District Court in New Jersey.  Although we would have preferred that these actions be consolidated in California, the MDL panel of judges decided to transfer the case to New Jersey federal court for pre-trial proceedings. Nonetheless, our law firm will continue to prosecute this action on behalf of all persons whose pets either died or became ill from ingesting contaminated pet food.

May 2008 Update
On May 30, 2008, Judge Noel L. Hillman of the United States District Court for the District Court for the District of New Jersey granted preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement of claims relating to contaminated pet food. The Court appointed the firm of Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP to be the Claims Administrator for the class wide settlement.

The Claims Administrator set up a website that contains information regarding the claims procedures, including, the Notice to Class Members, the Claim Form, the preliminary settlement agreement and the Court’s order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The website also contains an extensive FAQ section. Please visit http://www.petfoodsettlement.com

Anyone who wishes to opt out of the class wide settlement is required to provide the Claims Administrator with written notice to be received by the Claims Administrator by August 15, 2008. For information about “opting out” please visit http://www.petfoodsettlement.com

Further, anyone who wishes to object to the proposed settlement must file an objection with the court by September 12, 2008 and serve copies of the objection on the appropriate parties. The procedure for filing objections is set forth in the Court’s May 30, 2008 order and is contained at www.petfoodsettlement.com

December 2008 Update
On November 18, 2008, after a full-day Final Approval Hearing, Judge Hillman issued an Order and 65-page Opinion approving a $24 million settlement with Menu Foods and denying all objections to the Settlement. The settlement covers expenses associated with pet deaths and illnesses, including veterinary costs, time missed from work to care for sick animals, replacement pets, burial expenses and property damaged by sick animals. The settlement does NOT reimburse pet owners for their own pain and suffering caused by injuries to their pets. Pet owners who did not save all their pet food receipts or veterinary bills can still request up to $900 for undocumented claims.

Appeals have since been filed by two separate objectors contesting final approval of the Settlement, and these appeals will postpone the payment of claims. No payments may be made on eligible claims until all appeals are resolved. It is uncertain how long these appeals will take to resolve, and the timing of resolving the appeals is not within the control of the parties or their counsel.

If you have already sent in your Claim Form and would like to confirm that the Claims Administrator has received it, please visit http://www.petfoodsettlement.com/ and contact the Claims Administrator. In the blank box labeled “Message,” state the following: “Please confirm the receipt of my claim and send me my claim number.”

The law firm of Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP has been selected by the Court as Settlement Administrator, and as such they are responsible for mailing out notices about the settlement to known class member and processing all the settlement claim forms for this litigation. The notice and forms they may send you in the mail are the same as those found on the website.

December 2011 Update
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the $24-million class-action suit settlement and concluded that the deal is “fair, reasonable and adequate” except for one minor issue. In re Pet Food Products Liab. Litig., 629 F.3d 333, 336 (3d Cir. 2010).

2018-04-12T13:46:01-08:00May 30th, 2008|Case Update, class actions|Comments Off on Poisoned Pet Food Lawsuit
Read More

Speech to Address Email, Voicemail & Snailmail: Privacy Issues in the New Workplace

Privacy Issues in the Workplace: Email, Voicemail & Snailmail

On January 27, 2006, Andrew H. Friedman will speak at the California State Bar Association’s Section Education Institute on Email, Voicemail, and Snailmail: Privacy Issues in the New Workplace. The speech will address recent technological advances that have made it relatively easy for employers to monitor (e.g., “spy on”) their employees’ electronic communications in the workplace – employers can monitor employees’ computer keystrokes, review instant messages sent and received by employees, keep track of the internet web sites visited by employees, calculate how much time employees spend “playing” on the internet, access voice-mail messages left for employees, monitor employee telephone conversations, and read instant messages and e-mails that are sent and received by employees at work.

The speech will take place at Loews Santa Monica Beach Hotel in Santa Monica, California and will take place 9:45 a.m. until 11:45 a.m.

2015-02-22T16:45:14-08:00January 27th, 2006|Andrew Friedman, employment law, speaking engagements|Comments Off on Speech to Address Email, Voicemail & Snailmail: Privacy Issues in the New Workplace
Read More

Lawsuit Against Hospital for Violating Fair Employment Rights Class Action Certification Denial Reversed by Appellate Court

PRESS RELEASE May 31, 2005

Job Applicants Required to Divulge Reproductive Dysfunctions, Infertility, Pregnancy, Venereal Disease, Still Born Births, and Miscarriages in Order to Get a Job.

The Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal recently reversed the trials courts’ denial of class action certification in the case of Grace Fontana v. St. Joseph Hospital of Orange, (Superior Court Case No. 03CC02559), arising out of the Hospital’s policy and practice of requiring each and every job applicant to reveal personal and intimate details about their private lives in order to receive employment. 

After offering employment to job applicants, the Hospital required individuals to answer questions such as whether the applicant had ever had:

  1. venereal disease;
  2. taken birth control pills;
  3. problems with infertility;
  4. children with birth defects;
  5. stillborn children;
  6. fetuses/unborn children with birth defects;
  7. miscarriages;
  8. problems with pregnancies;
  9. problems with menstrual periods;
  10. problems with urination;
  11. seen a counselor, psychiatrist or psychologist and
  12. cancer of any kind.”

The Appellate Court ruled: “Recognizing plaintiff’s theory that many questions … are not related to any job at the hospital, and there is no business necessity to ask these questions, it is somewhat difficult to understand why a class cannot be certified, at least for the purpose of establishing whether or not there is class wide liability entitling the class to injunctive relief.”

Ms. Fontana’s attorney, Gregory D. Helmer, of HELMER · FRIEDMAN LLP, stated: "For years, the hospital forced thousands of applicants to answer these horribly invasive questions in order to get a job. Now, these individuals may have an efficient way to correct the harm that has been done to them."

Commenting on the decision, Ms. Fontana’s attorney, V. James DeSimone of SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN, LLP stated: “This is an important victory. This decision vindicates the right to a class action for California workers when an employer violates California’s Fair and Employment and Housing Act. The Appeal’s Court was
correctly persuaded by the excellent oral advocacy by attorney Michael Morrison.”

2018-04-12T13:46:01-08:00May 31st, 2005|discrimination, employment law, fair employment rights|Comments Off on Lawsuit Against Hospital for Violating Fair Employment Rights Class Action Certification Denial Reversed by Appellate Court
Read More
Toggle Sliding Bar Area
Go to Top