This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.


Consumer Law
Song-Beverly Act
ZIP Codes

Nancy Dardarian v. OfficeMax Inc.

Published: Jun. 1, 2013 | Result Date: May 10, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 4:2011-cv-00947 Settlement –  $600,000

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Chad A. Saunders
(Crosner Legal PC)

Gene J. Stonebarger
(Stonebarger Law APC)

H. Tim Hoffman

Arthur W. Lazear
(Lazear Mack LLP)

Eric Barba


Defendant

Jeffrey D. Neumeyer

Giovanna A. Ferrari
(Seyfarth Shaw LLP)

Michael J. Burns
(Seyfarth Shaw LLP)

Elham Marder


Facts

Nancy Dardarian and Nathan Thomas purchased items with their credit cards at OfficeMax stores in California. During their transactions, cashiers asked for their ZIP codes and recorded that information. As a result, they filed a class action against OfficeMax, alleging violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, on behalf of themselves and other consumers who made purchases between March 1, 2010 and Feb. 22, 2011.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged that defendant violated the Act by requesting and recording ZIP codes in relation to consumer credit card transactions, including shipping, delivery, servicing, installation, special orders, customer loyal program applications, and defendant's credit card applications. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant unlawfully requested and recorded personal identification information at its stores in California.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant denied the allegations and argued that it had informed all California stores to stop asking for ZIP codes at the point-of-sale. Further, defendant argued that before it stopped asking for ZIP codes, this practice was not covered by the Act because ZIP codes were not yet considered personal information under the Act.

Moreover, defendant claimed it never sold or reverse engineered ZIP codes recorded at the point-of-sale.

Result

The parties reached a settlement under which $600,000 in merchandise vouchers will be distributed to potential class members.


#88077

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390