This case was last updated from San Mateo County Superior Courts on 08/11/2022 at 14:01:21 (UTC).

BreAnn Scally vs. PetSmart LLC

Case Summary

On July 28, 2022, BreAnn Scally, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“Plaintiff”), represented by Rachel W. Dempsey, filed a class action civil lawsuit against PetSmart LLC (“Defendant”), seeking declaratory, monetary, and injunctive relief against Defendant for allegedly taking advantage of vulnerable employees. This case was filed in the San Mateo County Superior Court of California, with Judge Chou, Danny Y. presiding.

As per the facts of the complaint, the defendant PetSmart, the largest retail pet chain store in the United States, provides grooming services to over 13 million pets a year. The company promises aspiring groomers free, paid training where they will receive exclusive instruction from a dedicated teacher in a classroom setting as well as a supervised, hands-on grooming experience.

In the complaint, the plaintiff claimed that “even when groomers find that the job is not what they signed up for, they are not free to leave, because Grooming Academy is not actually free. PetSmart requires that all employees who enroll in Grooming Academy sign a Training Repayment Agreement Provision (‘TRAP’). The TRAP requires PetSmart groomers to take on $5,000 of debt to PetSmart in exchange for Grooming Academy training. PetSmart forgives that debt only if the worker stays at their job for two years after they begin training, no matter how little they are paid or how poorly they are treated. The TRAP even allows PetSmart to collect on the $5,000 debt if an employee leaves their grooming job involuntarily, such as if they are fired or laid off.”

The plaintiff further claimed, “$5,000 far exceeds any reasonable value of the Grooming Academy and is well beyond what PetSmart groomers, who make barely above minimum wage, are able to afford. As a result, the TRAP strips PetSmart workers of bargaining power that they could use to seek out employment opportunities in which they would be paid more or treated better.”

The plaintiff also alleged that “[t]his debt PetSmart saddles its employees with is illegal under California law. While employers can charge employees for training if that training is primarily for the employee’s personal benefit, employment law prohibits employers from charging employees for training that primarily benefits the employer. Meanwhile, consumer laws provide certain protections for borrowers who take out loans for personal or family use, and education laws require licensing for providers of post-secondary education.”

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged, “If Grooming Academy is primarily for PetSmart’s benefit, then the TRAP violates California employment law by requiring employees to pay for their own job training. And if Grooming Academy is primarily for the groomers’ personal benefit, then it violates California education and consumer law by saddling groomers with debt under unfair and abusive circumstances in order to pay for an unlicensed post-secondary school.” 

The plaintiff listed eleven claims for relief, including alleged violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 2802, 2804, 17200, 17500, the Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788, 1750 et seq., and the Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested a judgment seeking declaratory relief and to preliminarily and permanently enjoin PetSmart from engaging in unlawful practices. The plaintiff also requested an award for restitution, disgorgement, damages, and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ********3057

  • Filing Date:

    07/28/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Complex Tort/Class Action

  • County, State:

    San Mateo, California

Judge Details

Judge

Chou, Danny Y

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SCALLY, BREANN

Defendant

PETSMART LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

DEMPSEY, RACHEL W

 

Court Documents

Complaint.

Complaint COMPLEX CIVIL CLASS ACTION Comment COMPLEX CIVIL CLASS ACTION

Civil Case Cover Sheet.

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons Issued / Filed.

Summons Issued / Filed

Notice of Assignment for All Purposes.

Notice of Assignment and Designating Complex with Hearings Set and Fee Due Comment AND NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT AND TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

Case Management Order.

Case Management Order CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #1 Comment CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #1

Affidavit of Mailing.

Affidavit of Mailing CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #1 Comment CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #1

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/03/2022
  • DocketCase Management and Trial Setting Conference.; Additional Info: Judicial Officer Chou Danny Y. Hearing Time 9:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketAffidavit of Mailing.; Additional Info: Affidavit of Mailing CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #1 Comment CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #1

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCase Management Order.; Additional Info: Case Management Order CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #1 Comment CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER #1

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2022
  • FinancialFinancial info for SCALLY, BREANN; eFile Online Payment Receipt # 2022-027950-HOJ Scally, BreAnn $1435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2022
  • FinancialFinancial info for SCALLY, BREANN; Transaction Assessment $1435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2022
  • FinancialFinancial; SCALLY, BREANN; Total Financial Assessment $1,435.00; Total Payments and Credits $1,435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2022
  • DocketCause Of Action.; Additional Info: Action Complaint File Date 07/28/2022

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketNotice of Assignment for All Purposes.; Additional Info: Notice of Assignment and Designating Complex with Hearings Set and Fee Due Comment AND NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT AND TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketSummons Issued / Filed.; Additional Info: Summons Issued / Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet.; Additional Info: Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketComplaint.; Additional Info: Complaint COMPLEX CIVIL CLASS ACTION Comment COMPLEX CIVIL CLASS ACTION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2022
  • DocketNew Filed Case.

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PACIFIC COAST DISTRIBUTING INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Rachel Williams Dempsey