Costco 2008 Annual Report Download - page 81

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 81 of the 2008 Costco annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 92

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92

District of New York), it is asserted that the Company violated various provisions of California and New
York common law and statutes in connection with a membership renewal practice. Under that practice,
members who pay their renewal fees late generally have their twelve-month membership renewal
periods commence at the time of the prior year’s expiration rather than the time of the late payment.
Plaintiffs in these two actions seek compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, preliminary and
permanent injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, prejudgment interest and, in
Evans, punitive damages. The court has certified a class in the Dupler action.
Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the United States against motor fuel
retailers, including the Company, alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling
gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without adjusting the volume sold to compensate for
heat-related expansion or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy equivalent received by
the consumer. The Company is named in the following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron
USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et
al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.); Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark
Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP
Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v.
Ampride, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North America Petroleum,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534
(N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.); Jonathan
Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et
al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP
Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess
Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al.,
Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al., Case No. 07-
1754 (S.D. Cal.). On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned the action,
entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge
Kathryn Vratil in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. On February 21, 2008, the
court denied a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.
The Company has been named as a defendant in two purported class actions relating to sales of
organic milk. Hesse v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C07-1975 (W.D. Wash.); Snell v. Aurora Dairy
Corp., et al., No. 07-CV-2449 (D. Col.). Both actions claim violations of the laws of various states,
essentially alleging that milk provided to Costco by its supplier Aurora Dairy Corp. was improperly
labeled “organic.” Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on July 18, 2008. With respect to the
Company, plaintiffs seek to certify four classes of people who purchased Costco organic milk. Aurora
has maintained that it has held and continues to hold valid organic certifications. The consolidated
complaint seeks, among other things, actual, compensatory, statutory, punitive and/or exemplary
damages in unspecified amounts, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees. The Company has yet to
respond to the consolidated complaint.
The Company has been named as a defendant in a purported class action relating to sales of farm-
raised salmon. Farm Raised Salmon Coordinated Proceedings (lead case, Kanter v. Safeway et al.),
Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. JCCP No. 4329. The action alleges that the Company violated
California law requiring farm-raised salmon to be labeled as “color added.” The complaint asserts
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and
the California False Advertising Law, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks restoration of money
acquired by means of unfair competition or false advertising and compensatory damages in
79