ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Legal Newsline) – The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska has dismissed some claims in a lawsuit filed against Nordstrom Inc., which is facing a class action lawsuit there over alleged fraud and false advertising.

Nordstrom filed its motion to dismiss the complaint on Aug. 7, stating in court documents that plaintiff Maureen Keating “lacks standing to bring her claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and that the (first amended complaint) fails to state any claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.”

Keating filed the class action lawsuit against Nordstrom Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska on Feb. 16, 2017, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated who bought items from Nordstrom. Keating’s first amended complaint stated that Nordstrom “has a pattern and practice of advertising false sales prices while regularly charging its customers more than the ticketed price.”

On Jan. 26, the court granted Nordstrom’s motion to dismiss Keating’s claims as they related to pre-season sales and multiple item discounts, common law fraud, violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and violations of Alaska Statute § 45.50.471(b)(5).

Nordstrom was denied its motion to dismiss Keating's claims of violations of Alaska Statute § 45.50.471(b)(10), (11) and (12) and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, Keating purchased items from Nordstrom stores in Alaska and California after she was sent advertising by Nordstrom. Keating claims she was charged full price for the items instead of advertised discount.

“On Feb. 16, 2015, Ms. Keating alleges that Nordstrom’s signs and emails advertised sale prices of ‘up to’ 40 percent off or 33 percent off ‘or more,’” according to the complaint.

“Nordstrom contends that Ms. Keating does not have an injury ‘because she does not allege that [Nordstrom’s alleged practices] have affected her, or are likely to affect her, in any way,’” the opinion states. “With respect to those practices that purportedly did affect Ms. Keating, Nordstrom asserts that Ms. Keating still lacks standing because Nordstrom has refunded the overcharges, and thus she has not suffered any monetary loss."

The complaint lists four allegations: common law fraud, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, violations of AS 45.50.471, and violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. 

Nordstrom reimbursed Keating’s credit card for a variety of charges, the complaint states.

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska case number 3:17-cv-00030-SLG

Want to get notified whenever we write about U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska ?
Next time we write about U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, 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 District of Alaska




More News