Tammie Davis v. Devanlay Retail Group, Inc.
785 F.3d 359
9th Cir.2015Background
- Davis appeals a grant of summary judgment in favor of Devanlay Retail Group, after a consumer alleged Song-Beverly violations for request/recording of PII during a credit card transaction.
- Davis alleged Devanlay asked for a ZIP code after Davis paid with a credit card and the cashier returned the card.
- District court held Song-Beverly prohibits such post-transaction requests only if a consumer would reasonably view the request as a condition to payment, applying an objective standard.
- Court noted conflicting district-court interpretations and ambiguity in Song-Beverly’s text and history.
- The Ninth Circuit certified a state-law question to the California Supreme Court because there is no controlling precedent on whether the statute bars post-tender PII requests.
- The panel requested the California Supreme Court decide whether section 1747.08 prohibits a retailer from requesting PII at the point of sale after payment if not reasonably perceived as a condition to payment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §1747.08 prohibit post-payment PII requests at POS? | Davis argues statute bars any PII request in conjunction with credit card use. | Devanlay contends only prohibited if perceived as a condition to payment. | Ambiguous; not resolved here; California Supreme Court asked to decide. |
| Should the court apply an objective-perception test or textual/structural analysis to interpret the statute? | Florez-like objective test supports prohibition. | Textual/grammatical analysis supports broader or different scope. | Statute language and history are ambiguous; potential approaches both acknowledged. |
| Should the California Supreme Court answer the certified question? | State court best interprets California statute. | State court should resolve due to lack of controlling authority. | Court should defer to California Supreme Court; question certified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florez v. Linens 'n Things, 108 Cal. App. 4th 447 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (discusses interpretation of Song-Beverly and testing approaches)
- Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., 51 Cal. 4th 524 (Cal. 2011) (definitive interpretation of Song-Beverly provisions)
- Absher v. AutoZone, Inc., 164 Cal. App. 4th 332 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (cautions on punctuation and last antecedent rule in interpretation)
- White v. County of Sacramento, 31 Cal. 3d 676 (Cal. 1982) (last antecedent rule and punctuation guidance in statute construction)