Haley

Haley v. Macy's, Inc.

Good Law
263 F. Supp. 3d 819
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 7, 2017Case No.15-cv-06033-HSGCalifornia2,507 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilliam, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AND DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE

Re: Dkt. No.

Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion to strike filed by Defendants Macy’s, Inc., Macy’s West Stores, Inc., and Bloomingdale’s, Inc. Dkt. No. 41. The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7 — 1(b). For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss in part and DENIES the motion to strike.

I. BACKGROUND

This putative class action arises out of an alleged pricing scheme by Defendants to mislabel their merchandise with false or inflated original or “regular” prices. See Dkt. No. 37 ¶¶ 3-4⅞' 8-11. (“Compl.”). According to Plaintiffs, these original or regular prices did not' reflect the price at which Defendants “routinely, if ever” sold their products. Id. ¶ 12. These prices deceive consumers into believing that the listed sale or discount price is more advantageous, causing consumers to purchase merchandise that they otherwise would not purchase. Id. ¶¶ 3,10-11."

Plaintiffs Kristin Haley, Todd Benson, Zoreh Farhang, Job Carder, and Erica Vinci allege…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.