United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS IN PART AND DENYING
MOTION TO STRIKE Re: Dkt. No. 41
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge
before the Court is a motion to dismiss the complaint and a
motion to strike filed by Defendants Macy's, Inc.,
Macy's West Stores, Inc., and Bloomingdale's, Inc.
Dkt. No. 41. The Court finds this matter appropriate for
disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed
submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons
detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss in
part and DENIES the motion to strike.
putative class action arises out of an alleged pricing scheme
by Defendants to mislabel their merchandise with false or
inflated original or “regular” prices.
See Dkt. No. 37 ¶¶ 3-4, 8-11.
(“Compl.”). According to Plaintiffs, these
original or regular prices did not reflect the price at which
Defendants “routinely, if ever” sold their
products. Id. ¶ 12. These prices deceive
consumers into believing that the listed sale or discount
price is more advantageous, causing consumers to purchase
merchandise that they otherwise would not purchase.
Id. ¶¶ 3, 10- 11.
Kristin Haley, Todd Benson, Zoreh Farhang, Job Carder, and
Erica Vinci allege that they each purchased at least one item
from a Macy's store on or after January 1, 2012.
See Compl. ¶¶ 27-33, 38. On the basis of
these purchases, they filed a complaint on behalf of a
putative class of California consumers against Defendants
Macy's Inc. and Bloomingdale's, Inc. alleging
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law
(“UCL”), the California False Advertising Law
(“FAL”), and the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (“CLRA”).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant may
move to dismiss a complaint for failing to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To
survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must demonstrate
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A plaintiff must
provide more than conclusory statements or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action” for
the court to find a facially plausible claim. Id. at
555. Rather, the complaint must present facts which allow
“the reasonable inference” of a defendant's
liability for the alleged misconduct. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In reviewing a motion
to dismiss, the court construes factual inferences in a light
most favorable to the non-moving party. Manzarek v. St.
Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031
(9th Cir. 2008).
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Rule 9(b) imposes a heightened pleading
standard for claims that “sound in fraud.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) (“In alleging fraud or mistake, a
party must state with particularity the circumstances
constituting fraud or mistake.”). A plaintiff must
identify “the who, what, when, where, and how” of
the alleged conduct, so as to provide defendants with
sufficient information to defend against the charge.
Cooper v. Pickett, 137 F.3d 616, 627 (9th Cir.
Motion to Dismiss
complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to support its
three causes of action against Defendants. However, the
Court finds it premature to evaluate Plaintiffs' request
Bloomingdales and Macy's Inc.
do not allege any facts to support a claim against Defendants
Bloomingdales or Macy's Inc. Although Plaintiffs point
out that Bloomingdales is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Macy's, Inc., see Compl. ¶ 22, there are no
allegations that a named Plaintiff purchased anything from a
Bloomingdales store. Nor do Plaintiffs allege that
Bloomingdales was otherwise responsible for Macy's
pricing scheme. See Lowden v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
512 F.3d 1213, 1221 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008) (“In a class
action, standing is satisfied if at least one named plaintiff
meets the requirements.”). Defendants further state
that Macy's, Inc. is merely a holding company that does
not sell merchandise or operate any stores. See Dkt.
No. 41 at 8 n.6. Plaintiffs do not address these arguments,
but concede that they will dismiss their claims against both
Bloomingdales and Macy's, Inc. See Dkt. No. 47
at 7 n.7.