P.C. Richard Class Action Over Exposure of Credit Card Numbers Not Welcome in State Court
Class actions under FACTA for failure to protect consumers' credit card numbers have found federal courts less friendly since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 ruling in "Spokeo," which bars claims without actual damages.
January 23, 2019 at 05:10 PM
4 minute read
P.C. Richard & Son store. Credit: Roman Tiraspolsky/Shutterstock.com
Kelley Drye & Warren has notched a victory on behalf of appliance retailer P.C. Richard & Son in a class action lawsuit over sales receipts that conveyed too much information about customers.
The ruling in Baskin v. P.C. Richard & Son could halt the spread of litigation for technical violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003 in state courts. FACTA provides statutory damages of up to $1,000 for each technical violation, a standard met when a retailer prints more than 5 digits of a customer's credit card number on a store receipt.
FACTA class actions have found federal courts less friendly since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 ruling in Spokeo v. Robins. Now, the P.C. Richard decision suggests that New Jersey courts aren't rolling out the red carpet either.
Judge James Den Uyl of Ocean County Superior Court granted the defense motion to dismiss the P.C. Richard case Jan. 17 on finding that individual treatment in small claims court, not a class action, is the optimal setting for FACTA claims. Den Uyl's decision relied on a 2011 Appellate Division ruling involving the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Local Baking Products v. Kosher Bagel Munch. P.C. Richard's lawyer, William Gyves of Kelley Drye in Parsippany, argued that pursuing a FACTA class action in a New Jersey court is contrary to the Appellate Division's analysis of the superiority requirement of R. 4:32-1(b)(3) in Local Baking.
The Baskin case was brought on behalf of two New York residents and one New Jersey resident who claimed their sales receipts from purchases at P.C. Richard revealed too much of their credit card numbers. An earlier case filed on behalf of the New York plaintiffs in a New York federal court was dismissed in 2017 for lack of standing. Because state courts in New York are prohibited by statute from hearing FACTA cases, the New York plaintiffs partnered with a New Jersey resident to bring a case in New Jersey Superior Court.
None of the three plaintiffs suffered any actual harm from the allegedly noncomplying register receipts. P.C. Richard claimed that technical violations of FACTA are not appropriately adjudicated as class actions under New Jersey law.
The plaintiffs maintained that Local Baking should not apply because the TCPA is not analogous to FACTA. The TCPA has no requirement that violations be willful in order to seek recovery, and FACTA provides for fee-shifting, indicating the Legislature did not intend for such claims to be brought in small claims court by individuals representing themselves.
But there is no controlling authority in New Jersey concerning FACTA class action claims, Den Uyl said. Therefore, the reasoning behind the Appellate Division's decision in Local Baking is perfectly applicable to the instant motion.
He cited the Local Baking decision's statement that “by imposing a statutory award of $500, a sum considerably in excess of any real or sustained damages, Congress has presented an aggrieved party with an incentive to act in his or her own interest without the necessity of class action relief. Thus, it follows that the prevailing law in New Jersey is that adjudication of claims on an individual basis in small claims court is 'a far superior method to vindication of any rights and protection of the public than any certification or class action' in situations where a statutory damage award incentivizes a party to act in his or her own interest.”
Consequently, plaintiffs failed to satisfy their burden under 4:32-1 that a class action is superior to other methods of pursuing the claims at issue, Den Uyl said.
Den Uyl notes that New Jersey's judiciary provides help with the small claims process on its website and through an ombudsman in each county courthouse.
Gyves of Kelly Drye declined to comment about the ruling. He represented P.C. Richard along with Glenn Graham of the same firm. Lawrence Friscia of Friscia & Associates in Newark and Glendale, California, attorney Chant Yedalian, who represented the plaintiff and class members, did not respond to requests for comment.
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
© 2025 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 All

NJ Jury Awards $8M to Woman Injured by Employees Chasing Suspected Shoplifter
3 minute read

Amazon's Audible Hit With Privacy Class Action Over Use of Tracking Pixels
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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