Get 40% Off
🤯 This Tech Portfolio is up 29% YTD! Join Now to Get April’s Top PicksGet The Picks – Just 99 USD

Shoplifter extortion case against Walmart, other retailers is dismissed

Published 02/09/2019, 02:51 PM
Updated 02/09/2019, 02:51 PM
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Walmart's logo is seen outside one of the stores in Chicago

© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Walmart's logo is seen outside one of the stores in Chicago

By Jonathan Stempel

(Reuters) - A federal judge dismissed a racketeering lawsuit accusing Walmart (NYSE:WMT) Inc and six other retailers of extortion by forcing accused shoplifters to take costly "restorative justice" classes or else be reported to the police.

In a decision late on Friday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, found no proof of a nationwide conspiracy to steer accused shoplifters into paying $400 up front or $500 in installments for the classes from Utah-based Corrective Education Co, and admitting guilt, to avoid prosecution.

Shoplifting is the main source of inventory "shrinkage" for U.S. retailers, causing losses of about $559 per incident, and together with so-called organized retail crime about $17.1 billion in 2017, according to the National Retail Federation.

Koh said the three plaintiffs, who were accused in 2017 of shoplifting from Walmarts in Florida, Georgia and Texas, did not show that the retailers had specific knowledge of a conspiracy.

She said it did not matter that the retailers might use Corrective Education's database to conduct background checks before deciding to offer the six-to-eight-hour online classes, a portion of whose costs the plaintiffs said was reimbursed to retailers.

"The only alleged commonality each of the defendants have with one another is CEC, whom plaintiffs have chosen not to sue," Koh wrote. "That is not enough to allege one single nationwide conspiracy."

Koh also said she lacked jurisdiction over most defendants in the proposed class action because they did not have enough ties to California, and said the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue retailers that did not harm them.

She gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their claims against Walmart, Corrective Education's founders and some of its employees and directors.

Claims against Bloomingdale's, Burlington Coat Factory, Kroger (NYSE:KR) Co, 99 Cents Only, Save Mart and Sportsman's Warehouse were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be brought again.

The plaintiffs were identified as Jane Doe, Mary Moe and John Roe. Their lawyers did not immediately respond on Saturday to requests for comment. Walmart and its lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests.

Scott Gant, a partner at Boies Schiller & Flexner representing the Corrective Education defendants, said he was pleased with Koh's thoughtful opinion.

Walmart suspended its use of Corrective Education's classes in December 2017, the Wall Street Journal said that month.

© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Walmart's logo is seen outside one of the stores in Chicago

The case is Doe et al v Walmart Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 18-02125.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.