Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00990/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00990-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paula Haug
Plaintiff
Petsmart, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAULA HAUG, on behalf of No. 2:10-cv-00990-MCE-KJM

herself and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

PETSMART, INC., a Delaware

corporation; and DOES 1

through 50, inclusive,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Through the present class action lawsuit, Plaintiff Paula

Haug (“Plaintiff”) seeks various damages on both her own behalf

and on behalf of other purported class members for alleged

violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, California Civil

Code § 1747.08 (“the Act”), in requesting personal information

from customers in the course of certain credit card transactions.

The damages sought by Plaintiff include not only statutory

penalties, but also requests to injunctive relief, general

damages, special damages, punitive damages and so-called cy pres

relief. 

Case 2:10-cv-00990-MCE-CKD Document 22 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 4
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

 All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the 1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.

2

Defendant PetSmart, Inc. (“Defendant”) now moves to strike those

additional damages pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(f) on grounds that permissible damages under the Act are 1

limited to statutory penalties. Defendant further moves to

strike Plaintiff’s request for a jury trial, also in accordance

with Rule 12(f), on grounds that no such right is conferred. 

Defendant alternatively requests that judgment on the pleadings,

pursuant to Rule 12(c) be entered as to the allegedly improper

damages Defendant identifies.

Plaintiff has filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to

Defendant’s Motion. While Plaintiff expressly concedes her lack

of opposition to Defendant’s requests that her prayer for

injunctive relief, general damages, and special damages be

stricken, and further concedes that a jury trial is not

indicated, Plaintiff nonetheless qualifies her non-opposition by

asking that the Court not issue any ruling with respect to cy

pres damages on grounds that Defendant’s Motion did not address

those damages. Plaintiff’s non-opposition also does not address

the issue of punitive damages one way or the other. Plaintiff

does ask, however, that actual judgment not be rendered so as not

to adversely affect unnamed class members with unknown potential

damages.

A Motion to Strike is specifically designed to remove, among

other things, any “impertinent” matter from a complaint. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(f). 

///

Case 2:10-cv-00990-MCE-CKD Document 22 Filed 07/23/10 Page 2 of 4
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

3

To the extent that Defendant claims that certain damages are

unavailable to Plaintiff as a matter of law or that her demand

for jury trial cannot be sustained, a Motion to Strike under

Rule 12(c) is the proper vehicle to remove such requests. See,

e.g., Tapley v. Lockwood Green Engineers, Inc., 502 F.3d 559, 560

(8th Cir. 1974); Wilkerson v. Butler, 229 F.R.D. 166, 172 (E.D.

Cal. 2005). The Court will therefore proceed with adjudicating

this matter through Rule 12(f), rather by way of rendering any

judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), given its conclusion

that a 12(c) motion is more properly directed to the entirety of

a particular cause of action, rather than to the impropriety of

damages request that does not compromise the overall integrity of

the claim itself.

While Plaintiff attempts to exempt cy pres damages from the

Court’s ruling, and further does not directly address the

availability of punitive damages under the Act, the statutory

language of the Act unequivocally authorizes only civil

penalties. Cal. Civ. Code § 1747.08(e). No other damages are

mentioned.

Prior to enactment of the Act, existing law neither

authorized or prohibited merchants from requiring personal

information as part of a credit card transaction. Korn v. Polo

Ralph Lauren Corp., 644 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1219 (E.D. Cal. 2008). 

Where a new right is created by statute, the party aggrieved by

its violation is confined to the statutory remedy if one is

provided. Id., citing Estate of Starkweather, 64 Cal. App. 4th

580, 593 (1998). 

///

Case 2:10-cv-00990-MCE-CKD Document 22 Filed 07/23/10 Page 3 of 4
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

 Because oral argument was not deemed to be of material 2

assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs

pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 230(g).

4

Here, the Act unambiguously authorizes only statutory penalties,

and consequently no other damages are available. That precludes

both cy pres damages and punitive damages, as well as the other

damages whose excision Plaintiff has not opposed in any way.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion (Docket No. 12)

is GRANTED under Rule 12(f). The Court need not rule upon the 2

ultimate propriety of Plaintiff’s alternative request that the

offending portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint be adjudicated by way

of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and declines to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00990-MCE-CKD Document 22 Filed 07/23/10 Page 4 of 4