This case was last updated from PACER on 09/29/2021 at 08:29:41 (UTC).

Matilda Dahlin v. The Donna Karan Company Store LLC et al

Case Summary

On September 28, 2021, Matilda Dahlin (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, represented by Scott Gregory Braden and Todd D. Carpenter of Carlson Lynch LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against The Donna Karan Company Store LLC, (“DKNY” or “Defendant”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief along with prejudgement and post-judgement interest, among other reliefs, for the alleged sale of merchandise offered at a false discount price. The case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California with Judge Andre Birotte Jr and Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth presiding.

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “The practice of false reference pricing occurs when a retailer fabricates a false “original” price, and then offers an item for sale at a deeply “discounted” price. The result is a sham price disparity that misleads consumers into believing they are receiving a good deal and induces them into making a purchase. In reality, the practice artificially inflates the true market price for these items by raising consumers’ internal reference price, and therefore the value, ascribed to these products by consumers”

 

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “Retailers, including Defendant, substantially benefit from employing false reference pricing schemes and experience increased sales because consumers use advertised reference prices to make purchase decisions” and “Through its false and misleading marketing, advertising, and pricing scheme alleged herein, DKNY violated, and continues to violate, California and federal law which prohibit the advertisement of goods for sale discounted from former prices that are false. California and federal law also prohibit the dissemination of misleading statements about the existence and amount of price reductions.”

 

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “DKNY outlets do not offer any outlet merchandise at the full, or original price—ever. Every product in the store is discounted from an original price, the minute it hits the floor” and “Defendant’s perpetual discounting of the DKNY outlet merchandise constitutes false, fraudulent, and deceptive advertising because the original reference price listed is substantially higher than those prices ever actually offered by Defendant in its outlet stores. The reference prices are used exclusively as a benchmark from which the false discount and corresponding “sale” price is derived. Defendant’s scheme has the effect of tricking consumers into believing they are getting a significant deal by purchasing merchandise at a steep discount”

 

There are three claims of relief filed by the Plaintiff. The first claim is for the alleged violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200, et seq. The second claim is for the alleged violation of California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”) CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17500, et seq. The third claim is for the alleged violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), CAL. CIV. CODE § 1750, et seq.

 

In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court to certify this action as class action and designate the Plaintiff as the representative of the class. Further, the Plaintiff requested the Court for declaratory and injunctive relief along with an award for restitution and disgorgement of all profits and unjust enrichment that Defendant obtained from Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also requested the Court for an order against the Defendant to engage in a corrective advertising campaign along with attorneys’ fees and costs and any other relief the Court deems just.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    2:21-CV-07711

  • Filing Date:

    09/28/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Personal Property Fraud

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Andre Birotte Jr

Referral Judge

Jean P. Rosenbluth

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Matilda Dahlin

Defendants

The Donna Karan Company Store LLC

DOES 1-50, inclusive

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Scott Gregory Braden

Attorney at Carlson Lynch LLP

1350 Columbia Street Suite 603

San Diego, CA 92101

Todd D Carpenter

Attorney at Carlson Lynch LLP

1350 Columbia Street Suite 603

San Diego, CA 92101

 

Court Documents

#8

(#8) 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 as to Defendant The Donna Karan Company Store LLC. (jtil) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

#7

(#7) Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (jtil) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

#6

(#6) NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

#5

(#5) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Andre Birotte Jr and Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth. (jtil) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

#4

(#4) Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff Matilda Dahlin. (Carpenter, Todd) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

#3

(#3) NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Matilda Dahlin, identifying Matilda Dahlin; The Donna Karan Company Store LLC, Carlson Lynch LLP. (Carpenter, Todd) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

#2

(#2) CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Matilda Dahlin. (Carpenter, Todd) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

1 #2

Declaration in Support of Jurisdiction

1 #1

Exhibit A

1 #1

Main Document

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 as to Defendant The Donna Karan Company Store LLC. (jtil) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (jtil) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Andre Birotte Jr and Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth. (jtil) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Plaintiff Matilda Dahlin. (Carpenter, Todd) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Matilda Dahlin, identifying Matilda Dahlin; The Donna Karan Company Store LLC, Carlson Lynch LLP. (Carpenter, Todd) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Matilda Dahlin. (Carpenter, Todd) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-32060966 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff Matilda Dahlin. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Declaration in Support of Jurisdiction) (Attorney Todd D Carpenter added to party Matilda Dahlin(pty:pla))(Carpenter, Todd) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where The Donna Kara Company Store, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Scott Gregory Braden

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Todd D Carpenter