Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01505/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01505-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE ROMEO, individually, and CLIFFORD

KIDD, individually, on behalf of themselves and

all other similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 06CV1505 IEG (WMc)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 

(Doc. No. 58, 62, 68, 72, )

vs.

THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC, a Delaware

Corporation, dba HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC.

and EXPO DESIGN CENTER and DOES 1

through 50, inclusive, UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order

Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 58.) For the reasons set forth below,

the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion.

This class action suit challenges Defendant’s use of a credit card refund form with a preprinted

space for a customer’s telephone number as a violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (“SongBeverly” or “the Act”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1747.08. Under the Act:

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

credit cards for the transaction of business shall . . . [u]tilize, 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. 

Cal. Civ. Code § 1747.08(a)(3). The Act provides for civil penalties of $250 for the first violation and

$1000 for each subsequent violation. See id. § 1747.08(e).

Case 3:06-cv-01505-IEG-WMC Document 80 Filed 07/07/08 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

On October 17, 2007, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment after

determining that California Civil Code Section 1747.08(a)(3) does not apply to credit card return

transactions. (Doc. No. 58.)

Plaintiffs subsequently moved the Court to relieve Plaintiffs from the Court’s order and

requested the Court stay entry of any judgment in this case pending the outcome of a then pending

case before the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three, which was to adjudicate

the underlying issue of whether Section 17.47.08(a)(3) of the Act applies to return transactions. (Id.,

Ex. A-C.) 

On January 28, 2008, the Court stayed consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration

pending the California Court of Appeal ruling. (Doc. No. 72.)

On June 6, 2008, Defendant filed notice with this Court of the published decision of the

California Court of Appeal in TJX Companies, Inc. v. Superior Court, 163 Cal.App.4th 80 (Cal.Ct.

App. 2008). In its opinion, the appellate court reached the same conclusion this Court had in its prior

order—finding the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act does not apply to credit card refund transactions.

Id. at 87-88. 

In light of the California Court of Appeals decision, the Court lifted the STAY ordered on

January 28, 2008. (Doc. No. 78.) 

The Court now also DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. The stated ground for

the motion—a potential inconsistency between federal court and state court interpretation of the SongBeverly Credit Card Act—has been undercut by the Court of Appeals decision which sets forth no

inconsistency between this Court’s interpretation of the disputed provision and that of the California

state courts. The Clerk shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 7, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-01505-IEG-WMC Document 80 Filed 07/07/08 Page 2 of 2