Wal-Mart seeks to dismiss consumer's suit over claims it falsely advertised Rollback savings

By Tricia Erickson | Aug 2, 2017

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Legal Newsline) – Wal-Mart Stores Inc. recently filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit against it that claims the retail giant misled consumers with its Rollback promotions because it used false prices as the original prices to falsely reflect savings.

Brenna Ceja filed the class action lawsuit in April in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of California on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated alleging that Wal-Mart deceived consumers by making them think they were saving money because of the advertised Rollback price, when in reality Wal-Mart marked up the “was” price and the Rollback price was the regular cost. 

The plaintiff class would include all consumers in the United States who purchased with Wal-Mart’s Rollback promotion beginning on April 20, 2013. 

Wal-Mart submitted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on June 27 claiming that the court did not have personal and subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff lacked standing to claim injunctive relief.

Wal-Mart contends the California court should dismiss the case because the lawsuit is for all others similarly situated, which includes places outside of California, and the court only has personal and subject matter jurisdiction for claims consumer fraud in the state.

Ceja claims she purchased from Wal-Mart stores in two California cities. The motion contends that since she did not say she purchased anything from a Wal-Mart outside of California, the lawsuit cannot claim the protection/unfair competition and unjust enrichment laws in 39 other states and District of Columbia. 

The motion also claims that the plaintiff does not have Article III standing or sufficient, minimum interest in the dispute to seek injunctive relief. 

“To have standing for an injunctive relief claim, plaintiff must be in danger of being injured by the defendant’s continued wrongdoing,” Wal-Mart’s motion said. “Because plaintiff is not likely to be harmed in the future by any supposed misrepresentation concerning Wal-Mart’s Rollback pricing, she lacks standing.”

The case is set to be presented before Judge Morrison England of the Eastern District of California on Aug. 24. 

Wal-Mart is represented by Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP in Los Angeles.

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

Sign-up Next time we write about U.S. District Court for the Eastern 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 Eastern District of California

More News

The Record Network