Foot Locker Wants Personal Information Class Action Tossed

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Foot Locker Retail, Inc. wants a class action lawsuit thrown out, which alleges the retailer illegally collected and stored customer information, arguing that there is no evidence in the lawsuit that the personal information was ever recorded.

The Foot Locker class action lawsuit was filed by Plaintiff Joubin Mortezapour saying that the shoe store “requested and recorded personal identification information in conjunction with a credit card transaction,” which he alleges violates California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act.

Mortezapour claims in his personal information class action lawsuit that he made a purchase at a Foot Locker in Canoga Park, California and was asked for his telephone number in the course of the transaction, which he understood was required in order to complete the transaction and “to receive his receipt.”

Foot Locker makes three arguments against Mortezapour’s allegations to U.S. District Judge Manuel Real in the motion filed Thursday.

“First, plaintiff fails to allege that Defendant wrote down or recorded his personal identification information at all,” the retailer argues.

According to Foot Locker, California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act is not violated if a “retailer requests, but does not write down or record, a consumer’s personal identification information.”

Foot Locker cites the applicable part of the law, which says that “the Act does not prohibit companies from merely asking for personal identification information . . . a violation only occurs if the personal information is written down or recorded in some way.”

Second, Foot Locker also takes issue with Mortezapour’s Class definition, saying that the Class is for those who had information requested “‘in conjunction with a credit card transaction.'”

“But plaintiff himself used a debit card, not a credit card,” Foot Locker explains.

The Song-Beverly Act “‘prohibits any corporation that accepts credit cards from the transaction of business from requesting the cardholder to provide personal identification information, which the corporation then records in conjunction with a credit card transaction.'”

Foot Locker argues in its motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit that “the Legislature’s inclusion of only credit cards [in the Song Beverly Act] implies that the Legislature intended to exclude other methods of payments such as debit cards.”

The shoe retailer argues that if anyone doubts that this was the state lawmakers intention, he or she can look at other sections of the statute in which debit cards are mentioned.

Lastly, the retailer also argues that Mortezapour “failed to negate the applicability of the statutory exceptions set forth” in the law, which Foot Locker argues “he must do so to properly state a claim for relief.”

Foot Locker cites a 1940 decision, Green v. Grimes-Stassforth Stationary Co., which says that when “a party relies on a statute which contains a limitation in the clause creating and defining the liability . . . such limitation must be negatived in the complaint.”

In other words, the plaintiff must any “applicable exceptions” must be addressed.

Such exceptions may include “‘information related to shipping, delivery, servicing or installation of the purchased merchandise, or for special orders,'” according to the Song-Beverly Act.

For these reasons, Foot Locker wants the personal information class action lawsuit dismissed in its entirety.

Foot Locker is represented by John M. Callagy, Lee S. Brenner and Ken D. Kronstadt of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.

The plaintiff is represented by Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law Group APC, Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart and Sina Rezvanpour of RKR Legal.

The Foot Locker Class Action Lawsuit is Mortezapour v. Foot Locker Retail Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-05868, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.