Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07496/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07496-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick J. McGee
Plaintiff
Ross Stores, 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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PATRICK J. MCGEE, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROSS STORES, INC., and DOES 1-10, 

Defendant. 

No. C 06 7496 CRB 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ROSS 

STORES, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER 

CASES ARE RELATED 

 

Defendant Ross Stores, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Administrative Motion to Determine 

Whether Cases are Related came on for hearing and is appropriate for resolution without oral 

argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion. 

BACKGROUND 

On December 6, 2006, Plaintiff Patrick McGee filed the instant action alleging violations 

of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. on behalf 

of himself and a putative nationwide class of consumers. On February 26, 2007, Plaintiff Amber 

Tolley-McNerney (“Plaintiff”) filed a nearly-identical action in the District of Nevada (TolleyMcNerney v. Ross Stores, Inc., Case No. 3-07-CV-00090 LRH-(RAM)) on behalf of herself and a 

putative nationwide class of consumers. On August 31, 2007, Tolley-McNerney v. Ross Stores, 

Inc., was transferred to this District under action number 3:07-cv-04503 WHA. 

Case 3:06-cv-07496-CRB Document 44 Filed 10/01/07 Page 1 of 3
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 - 

In each action the named plaintiff alleges that Defendant has violated Section 1681c(g) of 

the FACTA in that Defendant by providing consumers with electronically printed receipts on 

each of which Defendants printed more than the last five digits of Plaintiff’s credit card or debit 

card and/or printed the expiration date of Plaintiff’s credit card or debit card. In each action the 

named plaintiff seeks statutory damages of between $100 and $1000 on behalf of the same 

putative class of nationwide consumers. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Under Civil Local Rule 3-12, an action is related to another when: 

(1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and 

(2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and 

expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges. 

DISCUSSION 

The Court finds that the two actions concern substantially the same parties: The 

defendant in both actions is the same—Ross Stores, Inc., a Delaware Corporation. Because 

neither named plaintiff seeks relief other than statutory damages on behalf of a putative class and 

each action describes the same putative class, the parties in both actions are the same. See, 

McGee Complaint ¶¶15, 26, 27; Tolley-McNerney Complaint ¶¶6, 16, 21, 43. 

The Court also finds that in each action the alleged claims and events giving rise to the 

alleged claims are the same: In each action, the specific violation of FACTA by Defendant is 

alleged – that Defendant provided customers with electronically printed receipts on which it 

printed “more than the last five digits of [the] Plaintiff’s credit card or debit card and/or printed 

the expiration date of Plaintiff’s credit or debit card.” See, McGee Complaint ¶¶10, 14, 24; 

Tolley-McNerney Complaint ¶¶33-35. Furthermore, in each action statutory damages are claimed 

based on a Defendants’ alleged “willfulness” in violating the statute. See, McGee Complaint 

¶¶11, 15, 25, 26; Tolley-McNerney Complaint ¶¶37, 39, 42, 43-5. 

Case 3:06-cv-07496-CRB Document 44 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 3
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 - 

Finally, the Court finds that litigating the two cases before different Judges would be 

burdensome and would result in unnecessary duplication of effort. Moreover, separate 

assignment raises the possibility of inconsistent rulings on identical factual and legal issues. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 1, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07496-CRB Document 44 Filed 10/01/07 Page 3 of 3