Skip to Main Content

CoreLogic, Inc.

Mitchell v. CoreLogic Valuation Solutions
Court File No. 8:17-cv-02274 (Central District of California)

This class and collective action first filed in court on December 29, 2017, as Mitchell v. CoreLogic. The Mitchell case alleges that CoreLogic did not compensate appraisers properly for their overtime hours worked.  The case also includes California state law claims for missed meal and rest periods, wage statement penalties, and waiting time penalties for failure to pay all wages due at the termination of employment. The case also seeks penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act.  Roughly 375 individuals joined the Mitchell case. However, on April 9, 2019, the federal court granted CoreLogic’s motion to compel arbitration, sending many of those individuals to arbitration. Not all of the Opt-in Plaintiffs or putative class members were covered by CoreLogic’s arbitration policies, so the Mitchell action is still proceeding for a smaller group. Additionally, most of the individuals ordered to arbitration have filed arbitration demands. To date, over 150 individual arbitrations have been filed by former Mitchell Opt-ins.

Type of Case

Unpaid Overtime Wages


Am I eligible?

Because this lawsuit arises under both federal and state law, you may have a qualifying state law claim, federal law claim, or both federal and state law claims.

Do I Have a Qualifying Federal Law Claim?

You are eligible to make a federal law claim in this case if you worked for CoreLogic as a Staff Appraiser at any time within the past three years in any state and were not paid an overtime premium for the hours you worked over 40 per week. 

Do I Have a Qualifying State Law Claim?

You may have a claim under state law if you worked for CoreLogic in California as a Staff Appraiser and other positions with similar job titles and/or duties) at any time within the past four years. 

Additional Information

Is This a Class Action? What Does that Mean?

This case is both a potential collective action under federal law and a potential class action under California state law. This means that, depending on the type of claim you have, there may be a slightly different process for joining and participating in this suit. See below for more details on this process.

Though the process and terminology may differ slightly, the idea behind both a class and collective action is the same: it allows one or more people to sue on behalf of themselves and other people who have similar claims. In order to proceed as a group, though, the Court must certify the class and collective. The Court has conditionally certified the federal collective action. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is pending court review.

Which Locations Are Included?

This case includes all Staff Appraisers that have worked for CoreLogic anywhere across the country within the past three years. 

What Time Frame Does This Case Cover?

There is a federal time limit, called a statute of limitations, that allows workers to recover unpaid overtime wages within two years of the worker signing up to join the lawsuit by completing the consent form referenced above. If we can prove that CoreLogic willfully violated the law, the statute of limitations may be extended to three years.

Do I Have To Pay Anything?

You do not have to pay anything to the attorneys if you join the lawsuit.  We are handling this case on a contingency basis. This means we will only be paid if the lawsuit is successful in obtaining relief either through a settlement or a final judgment, and that payment will only come out of that settlement or final judgment.

How Do I Prove I Worked Overtime?

If you do have records of the hours you worked, please preserve and keep them until we ask you for them. However, you do not need to have records of your work hours to participate in this case. If CoreLogic did not keep accurate time records, most courts will permit you to estimate your work hours.  Through this lawsuit, we will seek any records the company may have of your hours worked.

What About Retaliation?

It is against the law for an employer to retaliate against a person for joining a lawsuit to reclaim unpaid wages. If you currently work for CoreLogic and you believe you may be the victim of retaliation for joining or participating in this lawsuit, contact the case clerk, Abby Sokolowski, at  or (612) 256-3260.

How Long Will This Case Take?

The length of this kind of lawsuit varies from case to case, but they typically last one to three years.

Is There Money Available Now?

No. This is a pending lawsuit. There is no money currently available and there is no guarantee that you will receive money for participating in the lawsuit.

How Can I Help?

If you have information regarding CoreLogic’s Staff Appraisers, you can contact the case clerk, Abby Sokolowski, at or (612) 256-3260.

How Do I Learn More?

To learn more about this case, feel free to contact the case clerk, Abby Sokolowski, at  or (612) 256-3260.

Case Updates

  • May 4, 2020

    CoreLogic, Inc. Settlement Update

    After a full-day mediation in January, and months of negotiations, we reached a settlement with CoreLogic, which has now been finalized and filed with the Court. The settlement will cover appraisers included in the court case and in arbitration, and has received positive press coverage.

    The settlement needs to be approved by the Court before it is final. In a class action such as this, there is a two-step approval process. The motion for preliminary settlement approval was filed on April 13, 2020. The motion was scheduled to be heard May 11, although in these uncertain times we do not know how long the Court will take to rule. After preliminary approval, a settlement administrator will distribute notice to the class, and then we will seek final approval.

    If the Court grants preliminary approval to the settlement, you will receive a notice describing the settlement and your rights in the settlement. For now, the most important thing is for you to make sure we have the correct contact information for you.

    If you have any questions about the case, or to confirm that we have the correct contact information for you, please contact our clerk, Abby Sokolowski, at or 612-256-3260.

  • January 9, 2020

    CoreLogic Sanctioned Over $86,000 For Violating Court Orders Compelling Arbitration

    On January 9, 2020, in the matter of Mitchell v. CoreLogic, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-02274-DOC-DFM (C.D.Cal.), United States District Court Judge David O. Carter ordered Defendant CoreLogic to pay $86,355.62 in sanctions to Plaintiffs’ Counsel Bryan Schwartz Law and Nichols Kaster, LLP for “willfully and unreasonably disobey[ing]” the Court’s orders compelling arbitration.

    The order is the latest in a series of orders in the Mitchell case regarding arbitration. In the case, filed December 29, 2017, the plaintiffs – real estate appraisers for defendant CoreLogic – allege a variety of violations of state and federal wage and hours laws, including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide adequate meal and rest breaks, and failure to pay premiums for missed breaks. In February 2019, CoreLogic filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court granted that motion, compelling opt-in Plaintiffs who signed arbitration agreements to proceed in arbitration. Plaintiffs did so, filing approximately 160 individual demands for arbitration. In May of 2019, CoreLogic filed an ex parte request asking the Court to enjoin the then-pending arbitrations. The Court denied the request, holding: “CoreLogic asked for resolution of any and all disputes by the arbitrator. Having compelled arbitration, the Court will not now stay those proceedings due to associated costs.”

    CoreLogic later refused to participate further in approximately 111 of the arbitrations until the AAA resolved certain “threshold issues.” The AAA determined that these issues should go to individual arbitrators, then closed approximately 111 cases for CoreLogic’s failure to pay arbitration fees. Following the AAA’s administrative closure of these cases, Plaintiffs asked the Court to hold CoreLogic in default on its obligation to arbitrate and to retake jurisdiction over the cases. The Court declined to retake jurisdiction, instead ordering the parties to resume arbitrating. The Court did, however, find that CoreLogic had “displayed a pattern of dilatory conduct,” and had “willfully and unreasonably disobeyed” its orders. The sanctions order followed.

    Plaintiffs’ counsel Matthew C. Helland, of Nichols Kaster, LLP said that Plaintiffs were pleased with the order. He noted that “individualized arbitration is expensive for employers, but employers who choose to compel arbitration must be prepared to defend those cases, no matter the cost.” Plaintiffs’ counsel Bryan J. Schwartz of Bryan Schwartz Law agreed, saying, “Plaintiffs are eager to proceed with their claims in arbitration and are hopeful that CoreLogic’s obstructionist tactics will now cease.”

    Plaintiffs are represented by Bryan J. Schwartz and Natasha T. Baker of Bryan Schwartz Law, in Oakland, California, and Matthew C. Helland and Daniel S. Brome of Nichols Kaster, LLP, which has offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota and San Francisco, California. The case is entitled, Mitchell v. CoreLogic, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-02274-DOC-DFM (C.D.Cal.).

    For additional information about the case please call Bryan Schwartz Law at (888) 891-8489 or Nichols Kaster, LLP at (877) 448-0492.

  • October 15, 2019

    CoreLogic, Inc. Case Update

    CoreLogic decided to stop paying most of their arbitration bills. This effects the claims of approximately 111 individuals. CoreLogic raised several “threshold issues” it wanted resolved before it paid any more filing fees. Both the Judge and the AAA (the group administering the arbitrations) said that CoreLogic had to take that question up with an arbitrator—after paying fees. Rather than continuing to push their weak argument, CoreLogic decided to cut its losses for every single arbitration filed outside of California and Minnesota. On Monday, AAA issued its decision closing 111 cases.

  • July 31, 2019

    CoreLogic, Inc. Case Update

    Good news, CoreLogic has paid their initial arbitration filing fees. Now that they have paid, we can move forward with the arbitration process. First, we will have an administrative call with AAA to discuss any general issues. We will then work with the AAA to select an arbitrator to hear the case. The arbitrator will likely hold a scheduling conference to plan the next steps. We will be in touch as the case progresses, including to discuss any records you may have.

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established. Read full Disclaimer.