Court Opinion

ID: 9894216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 20:09:21.781539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:05.647304
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                           WESTERN DISTRICT

DANIEL GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND        : No. 153 WAL 2023
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY         :
SITUATED,                              : Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                       : from the Order of the Superior Court
                 Petitioner            :
                                       :
                                       :
           v.                          :
                                       :
                                       :
AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS, INC.,       :
CARTER'S INC., CHICO'S FAS, INC.,      :
EXPRESS, INC., GABRIEL BROTHERS,       :
INC., GENESCO INC., HOT TOPIC, INC.,   :
J. CREW GROUP, INC., KOHL'S            :
CORPORATION, TAPESTRY, INC., THE       :
GAP, INC., VERA BRADLEY, INC.,         :
                                       :
                 Respondents           :

DANIEL GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON     : No. 154 WAL 2023
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY         :
SITUATED,                              : Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                       : from the Order of the Superior Court
                 Petitioner            :
                                       :
                                       :
           v.                          :
                                       :
                                       :
FOOT LOCKER RETAIL, INC., FOOT         :
LOCKER SPECIALTY, INC., AND FOOT       :
LOCKER STORES, INC.,                   :
                                       :
                 Respondents           :

                                 ORDER
PER CURIAM

      AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

      Did the panel’s precedential opinion erroneously hold that the unfair or
      deceptive miscollection of sales tax does not occur “in the conduct of any
      trade or commerce” as contemplated by the Unfair Trade Practices and
      Consumer Protection Law, misinterpreting the statute and opening the
      proverbial door for all manner of unfair and deceptive practices in
      connection with the collection of sales tax and other regulatory compliance,
      a question of first impression and substantial public importance?

                                  [153 WAL 2023] - 2