Employment law firm Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw files second wage-and-hour class action in two days, targeting Cardinal Health 414 for unreimbursed business expenses
Executive summary: Plaintiffs' firm Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class-action complaint in California state court on 19 September 2026 accusing Cardinal Health 414, LLC of failing to reimburse employees for business expenses incurred at the employer's direction and of issuing inaccurate itemized wage statements as a result. The case highlights ongoing enforcement risk for California employers under Labor Code § 2802 (expense reimbursement) and § 226 (wage-statement accuracy). A second filing in 24 hours by the same firm suggests a coordinated litigation strategy that could pressure other employers to audit expense policies.
Who is involved: Plaintiffs' counsel: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP. Defendant: Cardinal Health 414, LLC (subsidiary of Cardinal Health, Inc., NYSE: CAH). Jurisdiction: California state court (likely Santa Clara County based on prior filings).
Likely next: Cardinal Health 414 will answer or demurrer within 30–60 days. The court will schedule a case-management conference. Parallel motion for class certification typically follows 12–18 months later. Settlement discussions often begin after discovery on liability.
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a putative class action on 19 September 2026 alleging that Cardinal Health 414, LLC, a medical-products manufacturer and distributor, failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses and issued inaccurate wage statements. The complaint invokes California Labor Code provisions requiring indemnification for necessary expenditures. The suit was filed one day after the same firm brought a similar meal-and-rest-break case against M&L Precision Machining, signaling an active plaintiff-side campaign targeting wage-statement and expense-reimbursement violations across multiple industries.
What's next — scenarios
Base: Settled with policy changes (55%)
Cardinal Health 414 pays modest per-employee restitution and revises expense-reimbursement and wage-statement processes; minimal earnings impact.
- Defendant files answer without vigorous liability challenge (next 60 days)
- Early mediation ordered by court (Q1 2027)
Upside for plaintiffs: Class certified, broader liability (25%)
Class certification expands exposure to all California-based Cardinal Health 414 employees over 3–4 years; potential seven-figure aggregate settlement and mandatory compliance monitor.
- Court denies motion to dismiss (Q1 2027)
- Plaintiffs survive Daubert challenge on damages model (mid-2027)
Downside for plaintiffs: Case dismissed on pleading grounds (20%)
Court finds complaint fails to state a claim under § 2802 or § 226; plaintiff appeal possible but delays resolution 12+ months.
- Defendant's demurrer sustained with leave to amend (Q4 2026)
- Amended complaint also fails to allege employer-directed expenses
What to watch
- Cardinal Health 414's responsive pleading (due ~30 days from service, ~late Oct 2026)
- Case-management conference date (typically 120–150 days after filing, ~Jan–Feb 2027)
- Any coordinated motion practice with the M&L Precision Machining case (same counsel, similar Labor Code theories)
Timeline
- — Employment Law Attorneys, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, Filed a Lawsuit Against Cardinal Health 414, LLC, for Alleged Failure to Reimburse Employees' Business Expenses (PR Newswire)
- — Employment & Labor Lawyers, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, File Lawsuit Against M&L Precision Machining, Inc., for Alleged Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Rest Breaks (PR Newswire)
Analysis — what this means
Likely next events
- Defendant's answer or demurrer due ~late Oct 2026
- Initial case-management conference ~Jan–Feb 2027
- Class-certification motion briefing ~mid-2027
Sectors affected
- Healthcare distribution & manufacturing (Cardinal Health peer group)
- California employers with field-based or remote workforces incurring unreimbursed expenses
Regulatory implications
- California Labor Commissioner may cite case in future enforcement guidance on § 2802 compliance
- Potential Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) derivative claims if wage-statement violations are proven
Historical parallels
- Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers (2007) – established employer duty to reimburse mileage under § 2802
- Troester v. Starbucks (2018) – California Supreme Court rejected de minimis exception for off-the-clock work, reinforcing wage-statement accuracy requirements
Key entities
Sources
- Employment Law Attorneys, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, Filed a Lawsuit Against Cardinal Health 414, LLC, for Alleged Failure to Reimburse Employees' Business Expenses — PR Newswire
- Employment & Labor Lawyers, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, File Lawsuit Against M&L Precision Machining, Inc., for Alleged Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Rest Breaks — PR Newswire
Related cases
- AST SpaceMobile faces potential class action lawsuit as law firms seek lead plaintiffs for investor losses
- Securities fraud class action lawsuit initiated against AST SpaceMobile (ASTS)
- Securities fraud class action lawsuit filed against Dick's Sporting Goods (DKS)
- Robbins LLP alerts Bloom Energy investors to securities class action and September 28 lead plaintiff deadline
- Robbins LLP alerts Capricor Therapeutics shareholders to act before the Sept. 28 lead plaintiff deadline in a newly filed securities class action
- Robbins LLP issues final investor alert ahead of September 28 lead plaintiff deadline in Wise Group securities fraud litigation