Source: https://www.robinskaplan.com/Industries/Retail
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 19:19:58+00:00

Document:
We know Retail. From big-box retailers, mom-and-pop shops, online merchants, brick-and-mortar stores, and their suppliers, to developers and landlords, our retail litigation lawyers represent the full spectrum of industry participants. Our clients conduct business through every combination of single-, multi-, and omni- channel retailing. We serve our clients as both plaintiffs and defendants, protecting them in an environment of increasing global and data-driven risks and opportunities. Our breadth of experience in consumer, competitive, and regulatory issues enables us to offer clients strategic thinking and swift action in response to real-time problems like data and privacy breaches, competition threats, class action claims, and real estate disputes. Lean and mean, our retail litigation attorneys establish practical goals, act quickly to gain early wins, and produce extraordinary results that safeguard our clients’ bottom line.
Made in the USA? Or not?
When can a company tout its products as "Made in the USA"? Different (sometimes conflicting) standards under federal and state law can make it difficult for manufacturers and retailers to know when it’s safe to label their products as American-made.
Join Anne Lockner and Thomas Berndt for an overview of the Minnesota Termination of Sales Representatives Act (MTSRA) and a discussion regarding possible strategies for manufacturers and suppliers wishing to avoid its statutory penalties.
A review of DOJ/FTC Statement on Cyberthreat and antitrust implications of sharing financial and customer information to prevent cyberattack.
Join Anne Lockner and Mike Reif to learn what steps your company can take today to lessen your risk tomorrow.
Establishing subsidiaries in the U.S.
In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1827 (N.D. Cal.): Recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for national consumer electronics retailer in price- fixing litigation against cartel of LCD panel manufacturers.
Represented Best Buy in multidistrict litigation over alleged price fixing in the market for cathode ray tubes in televisions. The claims resulted in confidential settlements with several large electronics manufacturers, including LG, Panasonic, and Toshiba.
In re Wholesale Grocery Products Antitrust Litigation, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4584 (D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2013): Lead counsel representing grocery wholesaler SuperValu Inc. in consolidated federal antitrust actions on behalf of a putative multi-state class of grocery retailers challenging a 2003 asset exchange transaction. Obtained dismissal of several class representatives in favor of arbitration in 2011 (appeal pending), denial of class certification in 2012, and summary judgment dismissing all remaining claims in 2013.
Obtained denial of class certification in a coordinated action alleging failures to redeem gift cards in violation of California Civil Code Section 1749.5, along with dismissal of claims for violations of False Advertising Law (California Business & Professions Code §§17200, et seq.) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (California Civil Code §§1750, et seq.).
Obtained denial of class certification for online retailer in case of first impression under Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, California Civil Code Section 1747.08, involving requests for consumers’ personal identifying information (PII) in online credit card transactions.
Obtained denial of class certification for national retailer in case of first impression under Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, California Civil Code Section 1747.08, involving requests for consumers’ PII in credit card transactions as part of rewards/ loyalty program sign-ups and look-ups.
Obtained summary judgment for national retailer in “loss leader” claims under the Unfair Practices Act (California Business & Professions Code §§ 17030, 17043, 17044); affirmed on appeal (9th Cir. 2010).
Secured dismissal of class action against national retailer asserting that the retention of drivers’ license information violated the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2721, et seq. That Act provides for liquidated damages (statutory damages) of $2,500 per person. 18 U.S.C. § 2725. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
Obtained dismissal of all claims asserted against national movie theater chain in copyright action involving audio-visual work.
Represented employer with 80+ stores in a statewide class action (removed to United States District Court, Central District of California) alleging off-the-clock work, meal and rest break violations, failure to properly calculate “regular rate” for overtime pay, and failure to pay accrued vacation, absence and personal holiday time off. Two of three plaintiffs dismissed their claims, and the remaining named plaintiff refiled only on the claim regarding improper calculation of “regular rate of pay” for overtime related to incentive payments. Case was dismissed without prejudice.
Successfully prosecuted claims on behalf of a large home furnishings company and national franchisor for fraud, breach of contract, intentional interference, and unlawful business practices against private equity funds and their principals. Representation ultimately resulted in the entire preferred return (in excess of $49 million) associated with stock issued to the private equity funds being eliminated and the preferred shares surrendered to the company for less than half of the amount of the original principal investment of the private equity funds.
Lead counsel representing company in executing response plan and investigation after Secret Service identified fraudulent credit card activity emanating from one of the company’s locations.
RealSource, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., et al.: Trial and appellate counsel for Best Buy in RealSource, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., et al. involving patent claims asserted in U.S. District Court in Austin, Texas. The plaintiff alleged Best Buy’s gift cards infringed its patent, and sought more than $32 million in damages. Summary judgment was granted. The judgment was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on June 23, 2008.
Secured termination of shopping center lease at trial related to landlord’s failure to satisfy opening co-tenancy condition and implied contract terms related to development of premises according to site plan.
Obtained summary adjudication in lease dispute relating to interpretation of cap on common area maintenance (CAM) charges / tenant's share of operating expenses.
Obtained summary judgment in lease dispute relating to failure to commence construction of premises following negotiations for amendment of lease (on appeal).
Secured signage rights through temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunctive relief for national retailer, along with return of overpayment of CAM charges for improperly characterized amenities of shopping center (security and valet parking).
Reference Clothing: In the chapter 11 case of a national retailer of clothing for young women, we represented the Official Creditors Committee. The representation included helping to engineer a seven-figure settlement involving the assets of the debtor’s principal.
Great Clips, Inc. v. Hair Cuttery of Greater Boston, L.L.C. and Great Cuts, Inc.: Summary judgment granted to client, Great Clips, Inc., against declaratory judgment defendant Great Cuts, which had made claims of trademark infringement following Great Clips’ entry into the New England market. On February 19, 2009, the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts found that a previous settlement agreement barred Great Cuts’ claims. On January 5, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the previous ruling by the District Court confirming Great Clips’ right to use its trademarked name throughout the United States, including the New England market.
Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Ultimate Acquisition Partners, L.P. (D. Minn.): Represented Best Buy in false advertising lawsuit against Ultimate Electronics based on Ultimate’s “lowest prices” advertising campaign. The case resolved when Ultimate agreed to withdraw the challenged advertisements.
A federal court has rejected a request by Keurig Green Mountain to dismiss multiple lawsuits charging that it has unfairly monopolized the market for single-serve “K-Cups” used in its popular coffee brewing machines.
Retailers are in the business of selling, but preventing return fraud is also important to a healthy bottom line.
Facing a wave of litigation, counsel representing TCPA defendants have seized on language in a recent Supreme Court case — Spokeo v. Robins — to obtain the dismissal of cases before they ever reach the question of class certification.
Imagine a room full of crates of 16-month-old Greek yogurt. If the yogurt is the subject of litigation, is there a duty to keep it indefinitely?

References: § 2725
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.