Barnes and Noble 2015 Annual Report Download - page 65

of appeal on August , ; under the current appeal
briefing schedule, plaintiff’s opening brief is due July
,  and Barnes & Noble’s opposition is due August
, . On November , , the trial court stayed all
proceedings pending appeal. On January , , Barnes
& Noble removed the action to federal court based on new
United States Supreme Court authority, and the district
court remanded the action on April , . On April ,
, Barnes & Noble petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals for review of the remand decision. The Ninth
Circuit denied the discretionary review and Barnes & Noble
is considering a petition for an en banc review.
Jones et al v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble
Booksellers, Inc. et al.
On April , , Kenneth Jones (Jones) filed a purported
Private Attorney General Act action complaint against
Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
in the Superior Court for the State of California making
the following allegations with respect to salaried Store
Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in California:
() failure to pay wages and overtime; () failure to pay for
missed meal and/or rest breaks; () waiting time penalties;
() failure to pay minimum wage; () failure to provide
reimbursement for business expenses; and () failure to
provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally
derivative of the allegation that Jones and other “aggrieved
employees” were improperly classified as exempt from
California’s wage and hour laws. The complaint contains
no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged
violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of
the plaintiff or the purported aggrieved employees. On
May , , Judge Michael Johnson (before whom the Lina
action is pending) ordered the Jones action related to the
Lina action and assigned the Jones action to himself. The
Company was served with the complaint on May , 
and answered on June , . On November , , the
court stayed all proceedings pending appeal in the related
Lina action.
Cassandra Carag individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc, Barnes & Noble
Booksellers, Inc. and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive
On November , , former Associate Store Manager
Cassandra Carag (Carag) brought suit in Sacramento
County Superior Court, asserting claims on behalf of
herself and all other hourly (non-exempt) Barnes & Noble
employees in California in the preceding four years for
unpaid regular and overtime wages based on alleged off-
the-clock work, penalties and pay based on missed meal
and rest breaks, and for improper wage statements, payroll
records, and untimely pay at separation as a result of the
alleged pay errors during employment. Via the complaint,
Carag seeks to recover unpaid wages and statutory penalties
for all hourly Barnes & Noble employees within California
from November ,  to present. On February , ,
the Company filed an Answer in the state court and concur-
rently requested removal of the action to federal court. On
May , , the federal court granted Plaintiff’s motion
to remand the case to state court and denied Plaintiff’s
motion to strike portions of the Answer to the Complaint
(referring the latter motion to the lower court for future
consideration). On September , , the state court
denied Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify counsel based on
their prior role in the Lina matter. On January , , the
Company removed the case to federal court based on new
US Supreme Court authority. On June , , the federal
court remanded the case to Sacramento Superior Court.
There are no existing deadlines on calendar. The Company
anticipates filing a petition to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals for review of the federal court’s remand decision.
Trimmer v. Barnes & Noble
On January , , Steven Trimmer (Trimmer), a former
Assistant Store Manager (ASM) of the Company, filed
a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (“Court”) alleging violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor
Law (NYLL). Specifically, Trimmer alleges that he and
other similarly situated ASMs were improperly classified as
exempt from overtime and denied overtime wages prior to
July , , when the Company reclassified them as non-
exempt. The complaint seeks to certify a collective action
under the FLSA comprised of ASMs throughout the country
employed from January ,  until July , , and a
class action under the NYLL comprised of ASMs employed
in New York from January ,  until July , . The
Company opposed Trimmer’s motion to certify the col-
lective action and class action. While those motions were
pending, the parties engaged in settlement discussions
and reached a settlement of the case on behalf of three
plaintiffs (rather than a class). The settlement agreement
was approved by the Court in May  and the case was
dismissed with prejudice.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Investigation
On October , , the SEC’s New York Regional office
notified the Company that it had commenced an inves-
tigation into: () the Company’s restatement of earnings
announced on July , , and () a separate matter
related to a former non-executive employee’s allegation
2015 Annual Report 63