Barnes and Noble 2012 Annual Report Download - page 57

Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble
Booksellers, Inc. et al.
On August , , a purported class action complaint was
fi led against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble
Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of
California making the following allegations against defen-
dants with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes
& Noble stores located in the State of California from the
period of August ,  to present: () 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 alle-
gation that these salaried managers were improperly clas-
sifi ed 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 the purported class. The Company was
served with the complaint on August , . On August
, , the Company fi led an answer in state court, and
on August ,  it removed the action to federal court
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of ,  U.S.C.
§ (d). On October , , the district court granted
plaintiff ’s motion to remand the action back to state court,
over the Company’s opposition. On November , , the
Company petitioned the Ninth Circuit for an appeal of the
district court’s remand order. The Ninth Circuit affi rmed
the district court’s remand order on May , .
Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com llc v. LSI
Corporation and Agere Systems, Inc.
On June , , Barnes & Noble, Inc. fi led a complaint
against LSI Corporation (LSI) in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, Case No.
-CV- EMC. The complaint sought a declaratory
judgment that Barnes & Noble, Inc. does not infringe U.S.
Patent Nos. ,,; ,,; ,,; ,,;
,,; ,,; ,,; ,,; ,, and
,,. Barnes & Noble, Inc. amended the complaint
on August ,  to add barnesandnoble.com llc as a
plaintiff , to add Agere Systems, Inc. (Agere) as a defendant,
to add a cause of action seeking a declaratory judgment
that neither Barnes & Noble, Inc. nor barnesandnoble.com
llc infringes U.S. Patent No. ,,, and to add causes
of action seeking a declaratory judgment that each of the
eleven patents-in-suit is invalid. On November , , LSI
and Agere
answered the amended complaint and asserted counter-
claims against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.
com llc, alleging infringement of the eleven patents-in-
suit. On November , , Barnes & Noble, Inc. and
barnesandnoble.com llc answered the counterclaims
and asserted several affi rmative defenses, including the
defense that seven of the patents-in-suit are unenforce-
able as a result of standard-setting misconduct. The Court
has set certain pretrial dates in the case, including a claim
construction hearing on March , . The Court has not
yet set a trial date in the case.
Dustin Torrez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
On October , , a complaint was fi led in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco
against the Company. The complaint is styled as a
California state-wide class action. It alleges violations of
California Civil Code section . (the Song-Beverly
Credit Card Act of ) due to the Company’s alleged
improper requesting and recording of zip codes from
California customers who used credit cards as payment.
The Summons and Complaint have not been served on the
Company.
Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
On April , , a complaint was fi led in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Orange against
the Company. The complaint is styled as a nationwide
class action and includes a California state-wide subclass
based on alleged cancellations of orders for HP TouchPad
Tablets placed on the Company’s website in August .
The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business practices
and false advertising under both New York and California
state law, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act
under California law, and breach of contract. The complaint
demands specifi c performance of the alleged contracts to
sell HP TouchPad Tablets at a specifi ed price, injunctive
relief, and monetary relief, but does not specify an amount.
The Company submitted its initial response to the com-
plaint on May , .
2012 Annual Report 55