Retail

Product Liability

"The market sees this firm as a go-to outfit for litigation matters in the retail sector."
(Chambers USA 2012)

Read our latest issue
Read our Class Action Defender blog

Representative Experience

Barnes & Noble, Inc.

In American Booksellers Association, et al. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. (Northern District of California), we obtained summary judgment on all monetary claims and settled on very favorable terms during trial on behalf of Barnes & Noble in a Robinson-Patman Act action brought by American Booksellers Association on behalf of its California members and by 26 bookstore plaintiffs.

Gap Inc.

In Ruiz v. Gap Inc., No. C-07-5739 (SC), we secured a victory for Gap in an identity theft case filed by a former job applicant who made claims against the retailer after a third-party vendor's laptop was stolen, containing personal data. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held the clothing retailer was not negligent in its handling of the data, and granted summary judgment to Gap, as well as to third-party vendor Vangent Inc., dismissing negligence claims. Gap's motion for summary judgment was granted in April 2009.

J.C. Penney Company Inc.

In DiPirro v. J.C. Penney Company Inc. (California Superior Court), the claim was favorably resolved for J.C. Penney after replacing original trial counsel in a suit that alleged the sale of decorated glassware containing lead. The matter was resolved prior to appellate briefing, which effectively cut down the trial judge's penalty award and the plaintiff's attorney fee claim by approximately 50%.

National Association of Optometrists & Opticians, et al. v. Lockyer

In National Association of Optometrists & Opticians, et al. v. Lockyer (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal), we are representing various optical companies in a constitutional challenge to various California statutes in suits that arise out of class action litigation for unfair competition and false advertising. We obtained a preliminary ruling that the statutes are unconstitutional. The case is currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.

Target Corporation

We are representing Target Corporation in a case that alleges the company falsely advertised items as “Made in USA” on its Target.com website. Plaintiff Sevidal alleged that he bought three clothing items on the Target.com website because the site stated that the goods were “Made in USA.” When he received the clothing items, however, he discovered that they were in fact made in various different countries. Rather than simply return the clothing for a refund, he elected to file a proposed class action lawsuit against Target in which he sought to pursue claims under the Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act on behalf of all persons in California who purchased any item misidentified as “Made in the USA.”