Class Action Against BJ's Wholesale Revived After Appellate Stumble
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge William Thomas found class certification was "not only appropriate, but necessary."
March 20, 2020 at 05:07 PM
4 minute read
A South Florida class action lawsuit accusing BJ's Wholesale Club Inc. of deceptive and unfair trade practices has bounced back from an appellate reversal with a trial court ruling granting class certification.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge William Thomas expressed confidence in claims from named plaintiff Laura Bugliaro, whose 2015 complaint alleged the discount chain was charging members sale tax based on the original prices of products, instead of their discounted value.
The judge found class certification was "not only appropriate, but necessary." Thomas noted the plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief only this time around.
Despite objections from BJ's that it doesn't have the ability to pinpoint its Florida-based members, Thomas found that its records reveal who bought what and where they got it. According to the ruling, BJ's still hasn't changed its taxation policies and "continues to act inconsistent with this court's interpretation" of governing statutes and regulations.
Bugliaro's attorneys, Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine partners Alan Kluger and Steve Silverman and Victor M. Diaz of VM Diaz & Partners estimate more than 700,000 members could have paid superfluous tax.
In one instance, Bugliario alleged she was charged $98 in sales tax for a TV based on its original $1,399.99 price, even though she only paid $769.99. The complaint claimed that meant the defendant collected extra money that didn't have to go to the state.
Related story: Class Action Lawsuit Against BJ's Wholesale Faces Setback in Florida Appellate Court
BJ's Wholesale has denied any wrongdoing, and said it gives all sales tax to the state.
Defense attorneys James Mckee, William E. Davis, Christina Kennedy and Kevin Reck of Foley & Lardner's Tallahassee, Miami and Orlando offices, and Brandon J. Williams of Holland & Knight in Miami did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
BJ's argued the expense and complexity of a class action was unnecessary, claiming the class was undefinable and the suit involved too many individual issues. It also claimed that complying with an injunction would mean creating new policies for all members—not just those living in Florida, as the lawsuit requests.
But Thomas disagreed, finding Bugliaro's claims applied to a whole group.
"BJ's argument misses the central purpose of a class action brought pursuant to FDUTPA [Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act], which is designed to protect the rights of the consuming public, not any individual consumer, through statutory remedies including injunctive relief," the order said. "Additionally, engaging in this type of merit-based analysis is inappropriate at this stage where the court is determining the propriety of the class action itself."
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed an earlier certification for the prospective injunctive relief in 2019, finding Bugliaro failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with the Department of Revenue, and that the plaintiffs' team hadn't clearly defined who the class members were.
Kluger and Silverman called it an important ruling for consumers, as it will require the defendant to stop charging extra in taxes.
"I hope the Department of Revenue sees the positive impact this ruling has for Florida consumers, and will work with us to continue to benefit our class of Florida consumers and help us to put an end to BJ's practice of wrongfully collecting a what they wrongfully claim to be a purported sales tax in violation of Florida law," they said via email.
|Read the ruling:
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBenworth Accused of Predatory Tactics in Foreclosure Dispute as Elderly Defendant's Health Deteriorates
4 minute read'Get Rid of the Men': Employer Accused of Discrimination
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250