Quantcast

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Saturday, November 2, 2024

'Sale' price lawsuit against Y.M.I. Jeanswear settled following court denial of defense's motion to dismiss

Law money 08

RIVERSIDE, Calif. (Legal Newsline) – A California woman's class action lawsuit against a clothing company has been settled after the court denied the defense's motion to dismiss.

A joint stipulation was entered Oct. 19 in the case filed in May by Veronica Real against Y.M.I. Jeanswear, dismissing the case in U.S. District Court for California's Central District, Eastern Division. The settlement came about six weeks after the after the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Real alleged that Y.M.I. Jeanswear's pricing scheme violates the California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and that state's False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, according to the order handed down by the court Sept. 1. 

Crossed out prices were interpreted as creating former price comparisons but because of the perpetual sales, merchandise was never sold at the former price, according to the order.

Real claimed she suffered monetary damages when she was misled into buying jackets, tops and jeans labeled as being on sale but that the defendants had labeled their products "sale" price, which was actually the regular price.

Real sought a jury trial and injunctive and equitable relief, as well as restitution and disgorgement and other relief, according to her original complaint. She was represented by Aubry Wand of The Wand Law Firm in Culver City, California.

Defendants based their motion to dismiss on Real's alleged failure to adequately plead that the prices with stricken-through lines were false or former prices or that the former price was not the prevailing marketing price in the three months before the date posted when the purchases were made, according to the order. 

The defense also claimed the plaintiffs' study of prices November 2016 to February 2017 did not sufficiently support their allegations because the study took place after their purchases.  

"Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded defendants received money from sales of their merchandise due to the deceptive scheme, resulting in unjust enrichment," the order denying the motion said.

More News