Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02906/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02906-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

FILED' 

SEP l' 1 2012 

ClERK, u.s. Di 

8OU1'HEFIN DISTRICTUlCAijiPOilNl1l ., 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVE JUHLINE, individually and on 

behalf ofhimself and all others similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

BEN BRIDGE JEWELER, INC., a 

Washington Corporation; and DOES 1 

through 50 inclusive, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. llcv2906-WQH-NLS 

ORDER 

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant 

Ben Bridge Jeweler, Inc. (ECF No.6). 

BACKGROUND 

A. ProcednralBackgronnd 

On August 30, 2011, Plaintiff Steve Juhline filed a Class Action Complaint against 

Defendant Ben Bridge Jeweler in San Diego Superior Court. (ECF No.1). The Complaint 

alleges that "during credit card transactions entered into at each of Defendant's stores ... 

Defendant in each and every credit card transaction entered into with Plaintiff and the 

[proposed] Class ... requested and recorded a telephone number and/or address in violation of 

California Civil Code § 1747.08," also known as the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. Id. at 11. 

On December 13,2011, Defendant removed the action to this Court. 

- 1 - 11cv2906-WQH-NLS 

Case 3:11-cv-02906-GPC-NLS Document 12 Filed 09/11/12 Page 1 of 8
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

On April 4, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment contending that it 

is entitled to relief as a matter oflaw because Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from pursuing 

his claims and that Plaintiff cannot prove all ofthe elements necessary to show a violation of 

the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. (ECF No.6). On May 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed an 

opposition. (ECF No. 10). On May 11,2012, Defendant filed a reply. (ECF No. 11). 

B. Undisputed Material Facts 

Defendant submits the declaration ofJerome Gronfein, Chief Financial Officer ofBen 

Bridge Jeweler, who states: 

...To perform a sales transaction [at the Ben Bridge retail store at which Plaintiff 

made his purchase], the sales associate first signs onto the computer. The 

associate then selects the "Sales" function from the menu and enters the items 

to be sold. After the item or items have been entered, the sales associate must 

select "tender" to proceed with the transaction. The associate is then prompted 

to select the payment type. Ifthe customer is paying by credit card, the associate 

selects "card" and a screen pops up to enter the credit card's security code .... [T]he screen will prompt the sales associate to instruct the customer [to] swipe 

the credit card through the reader. Once the card is swiped, the customer is 

prompted for debit or credit on the signature capture unit, and he or she makes 

the appropriate selection. After selecting credIt, the customer is prompted to 

approve tIie amount ofthe transaction by pressing "OK" .... When the transaction 

is approved by the credit card processor, the system then prompts the customer 

to slgn the signature capture device to complete the sale. The customer signs the 

capture device and presses "OK." At this point, the sales associate compares the 

signature displayed on the register screen to that ofthe signature on the card. If 

they match, the sales associate clicks "Acceptable" and then "OK" on the screen 

when prompted to confirm that the signature is okay. The sales associate must 

then click 'OK" at the bottom of the screen. At this point, the credit card 

transaction is completed. 

...Following the completion ofthe credit card transaction, the next screen is the 

"Customer Information" window, which pops up after exiting the tender section 

of the transaction. The associate enters the information given to him or her by 

the customer. If the customer declines to give the requested information, the 

associate must enter "Cash Sale" as the customer's name and click "OK" in 

order to bY'Qass this window. The sales associate then presses "OK" through the 

remaining fields on the screen and then the sales receipt prints. 

(ECF No. 6-2 at 2-3). 

Defendant submits the declaration of Mary Lou Castillo, who states: 

... On August 11, 2011, I was working as a sales associate at the Ben Bridge Jeweler, Inc. retail store located ... [in] Carlsbad, CA .... On that day, I processed 

a credit card transaction for the purcliase ofan item of merchandise by Plaintiff 

Steve Juhline. During Plaintiff s credit card transaction, I followed our company 

procedures for ringing sales and followed the prompts by the point of sales 

software program. 

-2- llcv2906-WQH-NLS 

Case 3:11-cv-02906-GPC-NLS Document 12 Filed 09/11/12 Page 2 of 8
I 

2 

3 .. 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11" 

12 

13 

1411 

15 II 

1611 

1711 

1811 

1911 

20 .. 

21 .. 

22 

2311 

24/1 

2511 

2611 

271/ 

2811 

...1 did not request or record Plaintiffs personal identification information until 

prompted by the point ofsales computer program. 

(ECF No. 6-3). 

Plaintiff Juhline submits his own declaration, stating: 

On August 11,2011, I shopped at the Ben Bridge Jeweler store in Carlsbad, 

California. I selected merchandise to purchase and brought it to the cash register. 

While I was standing at the cash register paying for my merchandise with a 

credit card, the Ben Bridge cashier asked me to provide my driver's license. The 

cashier asked if the address on my drivers license was current. I said no. The 

cashier then asked for my current home address, which I provided. I believe that 

I also provided my telephone number. The cashier entered my home address into 

the Ben Bridge cash register. The cashier then handed me the receipt for my 

purchase and the merchandise. It is my experience as a consumer that a sales 

transaction is not complete until I have possession ofthe merchandise and can 

freely leave the store. 

(ECF No. 10-2). 

c. Standard of Review for Summary Judgment 

"A party may move for summary judgment, identifYing each claim or defense-or the 

part of each claim or defense-on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant 

summary judgment ifthe movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact 

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A material 

fact is one that is relevant to an element ofa claim or defense and whose existence might affect 

the outcome ofthe suit. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 

574, 586 (1986). The materiality ofa fact is determined by the substantive law governing the 

claim or defense. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,252 (1986); Celotex 

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 

The moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating that summary judgment is 

proper. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970). The burden then shifts 

to the opposing party to provide admissible evidence beyond the pleadings to show that 

summary judgment is not appropriate. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 324. To avoid summary 

judgment, the opposing party cannot rest solely on conclusory allegations offact or law. See 

Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986). Instead, the nonmovant must designate 

which specific facts show that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. 

The opposing party's evidence is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn 

- 3 - 11cv2906-WQH-NLS 

Case 3:11-cv-02906-GPC-NLS Document 12 Filed 09/11/12 Page 3 of 8
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 II in their favor. See id. 

2 
 DISCUSSION 

Collateral Estoppel 
 311 A. 

4 
 Defendant contends that Plaintiffs claims are barred by collateral estoppel because Ben 

II Bridge Jeweler prevailed on the merits in a similar case in Los Angeles County Superior Court 

6 involving alleged violations ofthe Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. In that case, the state court 

7 granted Ben Bridge summary adjudication prior to class certification because the court found 

8 that Ben Bridge's procedures for requesting personal information from customers did not 

9 violate the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. Defendant contends that there is privity between 

II Plaintiff in this federal case and the plaintiffs in the Los Angeles County Superior Court case, 

11 and that Plaintiff in this case is bound by the prior decision of the Los Angeles County 

12 Superior Court. 

13 Plaintiff contends that summary adjudication granted prior to class certification does 

14 not bar a subsequent claim by a different plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that the decision ofthe 

Los Angeles County Superior Court in the prior case was based on an incorrect interpretation 

16 ofrelevant state law. 

17 "Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, precludes the relitigation ofissues argued and 

18 II decided in prior proceedings." Kerner v. Superior Court, 206 Cal.AppAth 84, 124 (2012) 

19 II citing Hernandez v. City ofPomona, 46 Ca1.4th 501, 511 (2009). For collateral estoppel to 

II apply and bar an issue from being litigated, the following '1hreshold requirements" must be 

21 II met: "First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be identical to that decided 

22 II in a former proceeding. Second, this issue must have been actually litigated in the former 

23 II proceeding. Third, it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding. Fourth, the 

24 II decision in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits. Finally, the party against 

II whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former 

26 II proceeding." Hernandez, 46 Ca1.4th at 511 quoting Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Ca1.3d 335, 

2711341 (1990). 

28 

- 4- llcv2906-WQH-NLS 

Case 3:11-cv-02906-GPC-NLS Document 12 Filed 09/11/12 Page 4 of 8
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 II When applying issue preclusion to class action cases, the United States Supreme Court 

2 II has held that unnamed putative class members cannot be bound by issue preclusion ifthe class 

3 II was never certified in the prior proceeding. Smith v. Bayer Corporation, --- U.S. ----, 131 

4 II S.Ct. 2368,2380-81 (2011). California courts have followed the Supreme Court, holding that 

"ifno class was certified by the court in the prior proceeding, the interests of absent putative 

6 class members were not represented in the prior proceeding and the requirements for collateral 

7 estoppel cannot be established." Bridgefordv. Pacific Health Corp., 202 Ca1.AppAth 1034, 

8 1043 (2012). 

911 A court "'may take notice ofproceedings in other courts, both within and without the 

federal judicial system, ifthose proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.'" Bias 

11 v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 

1211 F.3d 801,803 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2002)). The Court takes judicial notice that on April 20, 2009, 

13 II Plaintiff James Reisman filed a Class Action Complaint against Defendant Ben Bridge Jeweler 

14 in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card 

Act. (Case No. BC412141; ECF No. 6-5). The Court takes judicial notice that on August 24, 

16 II 2009, Ben Bridge moved for summary adjudication in that case, submitting a declaration from 

17 II Chief Financial Officer Jerome Gronfein which described the electronic sales transaction 

18 II process at all Ben Bridge retail locations. (ECF No. 6-6). The motion for summary 

19 II adjudication stated that "the class has not yet been certified and this is a motion seeking an 

II early merit determination." Id at 3. The Court takes judicial notice that on August 19,2010, 

2111 the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted Ben Bridge's motion for summary 

22 II adjudication, holding that "plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether or 

23 II not defendant's procedures for requesting personal identification information violated Civil 

24 Code § 1747.08." (ECF No. 6-9). The Order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court 

states: 

26 Plaintiff does not dispute defendant's procedures for performing sales 

transactions ... Plaintiff also does not appear to dispute that defendant made "no 

27 preliminary request[ s] for personal identification information" in connection 

with credit card sales transactions; ... This court follows Florez [v. Linens 'N 

28 Things, Inc. 108 Cal. App. 4th 447 (2003)]'s construction of the statute and 

declines to read into the statute a requirement that no personal identification 

- 5 - l1cv2906-WQH-NLS 

Case 3:11-cv-02906-GPC-NLS Document 12 Filed 09/11/12 Page 5 of 8
1 information can be requested or recorded until after a retailer prints the sales 

receipt and gives it, along with the merchandise, to the customer. 

2 

Id. (quotations omitted). 3 .. 

Defendant has shown that a prior state court case against Ben Bridge alleging violations 

4 

ofthe Song-Beverly Credit Card Act was adjudicated on the merits prior to class certification. 

511 

Defendant has not show that Plaintiffwas a named party in that prior action or in privity with 

611 

a named party in that action. Accordingly, this Court concludes that the interests ofPlaintiff 

711 

in this case "were not represented in the prior proceeding and the requirements for collateral 

811 

9" estoppel cannot be established." See Bridgeford, 202 Ca1.App.4th at 1043. 

10 

B. Violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act 

11 

Defendant contends that the standard procedures employed by Ben Bridge retailers for 

requesting personal identification information do not violate the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act 

1211 

because the retailer waits ''until the credit transaction is completed before requesting a 

1311 

customer's address and telephone number," and "it is physically impossible for the store sales 

1411 

associates to record any personal information until the sales transaction is completed and 

15 II 

payment is tendered." (ECF No. 6-1 at 11). Defendant contends that statutory construction of 

1611 

the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act prohibits only a preliminary request for personal 

1711 

identification information that immediately precedes the credit card transaction. 18 .. 

Plaintiff contends that the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act should be interpreted broadly 

19 

to prohibit the request of personal identification information "in conjunction with the use of 

20 II 

a credit card." (ECF No. 10 at 13). Plaintiff contends that Defendant's request for personal 

2111 

identification information occurs before the sales transaction is complete and is thus prohibited 22 

by the Act. Id. 23 .. 

The Song-Beverly Credit Card Act provides that: 

24 

[N]o person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation that accepts credit cards for 

25 the transaction ofbusiness shall do any of the following: ... 

Request, or require as a condition to accepting the credit card as payment in full or in 

part for goods or services, the cardliolder to provide personal identification 

27 

26 

mformation, which the person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation accepting 

the credit card writes, causes to be written, or otherwise records upon the credit card 

28 transaction form or otherwise .... 

-6- Ilcv2906-WQH-NLS 

Case 3:11-cv-02906-GPC-NLS Document 12 Filed 09/11/12 Page 6 of 8
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

II 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

Utilize, in any credit card transaction, a credit card form which contains preprinted 

spaces specifically designated for filling in any personal identification information of 

the cardholder .... 

For purposes ofthis section "personal identification information," means information 

concerning the cardholder, other than information set forth on the credit card, and 

including, but not limited to, the cardholder's address and telephone number. 

Cal. Civ. Code § 1747.08(a)(2-3), (b). 

The Song-Beverly Credit Card Act is violated when "a consumer would perceive the 

7 II store's request for information as a condition ofthe use ofa credit card." Florez v. Linens 'N 

8 II Things, Inc., 108 Cal. App. 4th 447, 451 (2003) (quotations omitted). A court applies an 

9 objective test to determine whether a retailer's request for personal identification information 

would be perceived as a condition of credit card payment. See Florez, 108 Cal. App. 4th at 

11 451 ("[T]he retailer's request for personal identification information must be viewed from the 

12 customer's standpoint."). "[W]here no reasonable customer could perceive the request for 

13 [personal identification information] as a condition for the credit card transaction, the Act has 

14 not been violated." Gass v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 279 F.R.D. 561, 572 (C.D. Cal. 2012); see also 

II Rothman v. General Nutrition Corp., No. CV 11-03617 SJO (Rzx), 2011 WL 6940490 at * 6 

16 II (C.D.Cai. November 17, 2011) ("[I]f the personal information is requested as opposed to 

17 II required, whether there has been a violation of the Act would depend upon whether the 

18 II individual consumer reasonably believed that providing his personal information was a 

19 II condition of consummating the credit card transaction."). 

"By its plain language, [the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act] prohibits a 'request' for 

21 II personal identification information in conjunction with the use ofa credit card." Florez, 108 

2211 Cal. App. 4th at 451; see also Korn, 644 F.Supp.2d at 1216 ("a plaintiff may state a cause of 

23 II action by alleging that a defendant requested such information in conjunction with a credit card 

~" 

24 II traJ?-saction"). However, "nothing prevents a retailer from soliciting a cpnsumer's address and 

II telephone number for a store's mailing list, if that information is provided voluntarily .... A 

26 II merchant can easily delay the request until the customer tenders payment or makes his or her 

2711 preferred method ofpayment known." Florez, 108 Cal. App. 4th at 451. "[A] 'request' for 

28 II personal identification information [is] prohibited if it immediately preceded the credit card 

- 7 - llcv2906-WQH-NLS 

Case 3:11-cv-02906-GPC-NLS Document 12 Filed 09/11/12 Page 7 of 8
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 II transaction ... section 1747.8 bars a preliminary request for personal identification information." 

2 IIld. at 453. 

3 The undisputed facts ofthis case show that a sales associate at Ben Bridge Jewelers 

4 requested personal identification information from Plaintiff on August 11, 2011 "while 

II [Plaintiff) was standing at the cash register paying for [his] merchandise with a credit card." 

6 II (ECF No.10-2). The undisputed facts show that the request occurred after Plaintiff indicated 

7 1/ that he would be paying with a credit card, handed his card to the sales associate, obtained 

8 approval from the credit card processor, and signed for the purchase, but before his receipt was 

9 printed and the purchased merchandise was handed to him by the sales associate. The facts 

do not show a clear indication to the customer that the credit card transaction has been 

11 /I completed at the time thei~ personal identification information is requested. 

12 Defendant has failed to show that, "viewed from the customer's standpoint," Florez, 

13 108 Cal. App. 4th at 451, "no reasonable customer could perceive the request for [personal 

14 II identification information] as a condition for the credit card transaction," Gass, 279 F.R.D. at 

II 572, that occurred in this case. Defendant has failed to show that the request for personal 

16/1 identification information in this case is not "in conjunction with the use of a credit card." 

17 /I Florez, 108 Cal. App. 4th at 451. Based on the undisputed facts presented, the Court fmds that 

18 II Defendant has failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on 

19/1 Plaintiffs claim for a violation ofthe Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. 

CONCLUSION 

21 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant 

2211 Ben Bridge Jeweler, Inc. (ECF No.6) is DENIED. 

23 

241\ Dated: 
 ~ 

26 

27 

28 

WILLIAM Q. HAYES 

UNITED STATES DIST 

- 8 - 11 cv2906-WQH-NLS 

Case 3:11-cv-02906-GPC-NLS Document 12 Filed 09/11/12 Page 8 of 8