291 F. Supp. 3d 1076
C.D. Cal.2018Background
- Stein Mart used price tags showing a higher "Compare At" price (asterisked) and a lower "Our Price," with the asterisk pointing to a Fair Pricing Policy stating "Compare at" is based on suppliers' MSRPs.
- Plaintiffs Sperling and Schuh purchased multiple items at Stein Mart (Yellow Box sandals, Revelation suitcase, Peck & Peck Ava pants, Kenneth Cole suit, Alan Flusser shirt); most challenged items were non‑exclusive products for which Stein Mart used supplier MSRPs.
- Evidence: Stein Mart showed its "Compare At" figures derived from manufacturers' MSRPs and produced evidence that other retailers sold identical or comparable items at or above those comparators for several purchases. Plaintiffs produced no market‑price evidence contradicting the MSRPs.
- Procedural: Sperling filed suit asserting violations of California FAL, CLRA, and UCL; Schuh later joined. Stein Mart moved for summary judgment; Plaintiffs moved for class certification.
- Additional procedural fact: Schuh failed to timely respond to requests for admission and thus is deemed to have admitted (inter alia) that he read the Fair Pricing Policy and did not rely on the "Compare At" prices.
- Outcome: Court granted Stein Mart's summary judgment motion (finding no evidence of deceptive pricing) and denied class certification as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stein Mart's "Compare At" tags are deceptive under FAL/CLRA/UCL (reasonable consumer test) | Plaintiffs: tags mislead shoppers into believing the higher price was the prevailing actual retail price, causing reliance and injury | Stein Mart: "Compare At" reflects suppliers' MSRPs and comparable items are sold elsewhere; plaintiffs offer no evidence that MSRPs were inaccurate | Held: Not deceptive as a matter of law because plaintiffs failed to present evidence that comparators were incorrect or that consumers were likely to be deceived |
| Effect of non‑exclusive vs exclusive product evidence | Plaintiffs: exclusive‑style comparisons can be misleading; similar claim here | Stein Mart: most products were non‑exclusive; when identical/comparable items are sold elsewhere, comparison to MSRP is permissible | Held: This is a non‑exclusive product case; plaintiffs needed (but failed to provide) evidence that other retailers did not sell at the comparator price |
| Schuh's admissions to requests for admission | Plaintiffs: admissions should be excused or not dispositive | Stein Mart: timely deemed admissions prove Schuh read pricing policy and did not rely on "Compare At" | Held: Schuh's responses were untimely and thus his admissions stand; court did not grant withdrawal because no motion was filed |
| UCL claim based on FTC Pricing Guides | Plaintiffs: noncompliance with FTC Guides supports UCL claim | Stein Mart: FTC Guides do not create private rights; UCL requires actual injury from deceptive practice | Held: Even accepting FTC guidance, plaintiffs still failed to show deception or injury, so UCL claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant may show absence of evidence to prevail on summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (no genuine issue if record could not lead rational trier of fact to find for nonmoving party)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (reasonable consumer standard for consumer‑protection claims)
- Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 691 F.3d 1152 (true statements can be actionable if likely to mislead)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (UCL requires injury in fact caused by the alleged unfair practice)