Legal Newsline

Friday, September 20, 2019

Court rules class action lawsuit against J. Crew website needs to be amended

By Chandra Lye | Jun 8, 2017

LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) – A class action lawsuit against J. Crew will need to be amended before it will be considered, a recent decision by a U.S. district court judge stated.

The decision was the response to a request to dismiss the case.  

In the complaint, plaintiff Dana Delman claimed J. Crew misled consumers with what seemed to be discounted products but turned out not to be so. 

The issue was with the J. Crew Factory website, which lists Valued At prices along with Your Price, which the court stated may confuse consumers. 

“The goods offered for sale on the Factory website were specifically manufactured for sale on the Factory website to resemble those items sold at J. Crew’s higher priced stores, but are of inferior quality,” wrote Judge Michael Fitzgerald, of the Central District of California.

“Despite the promise of a discount implicit in the comparison between the Valued At and Your Price sales prices, J. Crew is in fact selling the goods available on the Factory website at full price."

The order indicates that Delman hired an expert to look into the claims by J. Crew that the Valued At price was what other retailers were offering for similar type of products. The expert was not able to find comparable prices at other retailers.

Delman originally filed the lawsuit on Dec. 13 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Central California. The defendants filed to dismiss the case in March, and Delman filed her opposition to the dismissal on April 10. 

The court wrote in its decision that the motion was partially granted and partially denied. 

“Plaintiff’s theory regarding defendant’s allegedly deceptive advertising is viable as currently pled, and plaintiff has standing to pursue her claims for injunctive relief,” the court's opinion states.

Yet, the court noted that Delman did not “allege sufficient facts” and that she failed to give appropriate notice to the defendants. However, Fitzgerald wrote that failure did not require the dismissal of the case. Instead, he stated that Delman should file an amended complaint. 

“If, 30 days after the notice is served upon defendants neither party has filed notice that defendants have abated their allegedly improper conduct, plaintiff’s CLRA claims as alleged in the forthcoming second amended complaint shall become operative,” the court stated.

Want to get notified whenever we write about U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ?

Sign-up Next time we write about U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California