BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Court reinstates suit over false ‘market price’ on Saks shoe label


A federal appeals court has reinstated putative class action consumer litigation in which the Saks department store chain was charged with putting inflated market price information on a pair of allegedly discounted shoes.

Randy Nunez charged that he would not have bought a pair of shoes at a San Diego Off Fifth store in 2015 operated by New York-based Saks Inc. had he known there was a fictitious “Market Price” alongside a “You Pay” price on the shoes, according to Thursday’s ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in Randy Nunez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Saks Inc.

Mr. Nunez alleged the market price “is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer into believing he is purchasing a discounted product.”

He filed suit in U.S. District Court in Pasadena, California, charging violation of California’s False Advertising Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law.

The district court dismissed the case on the basis Mr. Nunez lacked standing to assert claims on behalf of putative class members. His case was reinstated by a unanimous three-judge appeals court panel. 

“Because Nunez has demonstrated standing to pursue his individual claims, the district court should have deferred consideration of whether he was an adequate class representative until the class certification stage of proceedings,” said the ruling.

The court affirmed dismissal of Mr. Nunez’s allegations of subjunctive relief, stating they were insufficient to demonstrate standing.

Attorneys in the case could not immediately be reached for comment.



Read Next