Petsmart 2012 Annual Report Download - page 70

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 70 of the 2012 Petsmart 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 80

  • 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

F-24
action on behalf of PetSmart's operations managers and similarly situated employees. The complaint alleges that PetSmart has
misclassified operations managers as exempt and as a result failed to pay them overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours
per week. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, liquidated damages, and other relief, including attorneys' fees, costs, and
injunctive relief. We do not believe that the claims alleged in the lawsuit have merit and do not believe collective treatment is
appropriate.
Also in September 2012, a former groomer filed a lawsuit against us captioned Negrete, et al. v. PetSmart, Inc. that is currently
pending in the California Superior Court for the County of Shasta. The plaintiff seeks to assert claims on behalf of current and
former California pet stylists that PetSmart failed to provide pay for all hours worked, failed to properly reimburse associates for
business expenses, failed to provide proper wage statements, and failed to provide timely and uninterrupted meal and rest periods.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive
relief.
On December 14, 2012, a group of four former managers filed a lawsuit against us captioned Miller, et al. v. PetSmart, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The plaintiffs seek to assert claims on behalf of hourly
and exempt store management personnel from December 14, 2008 to the present for alleged unreimbursed mileage expenses. The
lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including attorneys’ fees, costs, and injunctive relief.
On December 22, 2012, a customer filed a lawsuit against us captioned Matin, et al. v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company, et al.
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff claims he purchased jerky treats containing
duck or chicken imported from China that caused injury to his pet, and he seeks to assert claims on behalf of a nationwide class
of consumers. We tendered the claim to Nestle Purina, and Nestle Purina is currently defending the case on our behalf. We have
filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois so it can be consolidated with another case involving the same
products, Adkins, et al. v. Nestle Purina PetCare Company, et al. We have not yet received a decision on that motion.
We are involved in the defense of various other legal proceedings that we do not believe are material to our consolidated
financial statements.
PetSmart, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements — (Continued)