Dollar General 2014 Annual Report Download - page 151

10-K
DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
8. Commitments and contingencies (Continued)
investments. The Company also does not believe that this matter is amenable to class or similar
treatment. However, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether the action will ultimately be
permitted to proceed as a class or in a similar fashion or the size of any putative class. Likewise, at this
time, it is not possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted, and, therefore, the Company cannot
estimate the potential exposure or range of potential loss. If the matter were to proceed successfully as
a class or similar action or the Company is unsuccessful in its defense efforts as to the merits of the
action, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a
whole.
On May 23, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Juan Varela v. Dolgen California and Does 1 through 50 (Case
No. RIC 1306158) (‘‘Varela’’) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Riverside in which the plaintiff alleges that he and other ‘‘key carriers’’ were not provided with meal
and rest periods in violation of California law and seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, injunctive
relief, consequential damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Varela plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of California ‘‘key carriers’’ as to these claims.
The Varela plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceed under
California’s Private Attorney General Act (‘‘PAGA’’).
The Company removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No. 5:13-cv-01172VAP-SP) on July 1, 2013, and filed its answer to the complaint on
July 1, 2013. On July 30, 2013, the plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court.
On September 13, 2013, notwithstanding the Company’s opposition, the court granted plaintiff’s
motion and remanded the case. The Company filed a petition for permission to appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 23, 2013. On February 27, 2015, the Ninth
Circuit denied the Company’s petition for permission to appeal. Because the Company anticipated the
denial, the Company filed a petition for coordination of the Main and Varela matters on April 28, 2014.
Following the Company’s petition for coordination, the Main plaintiff agreed to dismiss her
complaint without prejudice, and the parties agreed that the Varela plaintiff would file an amended
complaint to include the allegations asserted in the original Main complaint. On November 4, 2014,
pursuant to a stipulation granted by the Varela court, the Varela plaintiff filed an amended complaint to
add Victoria Lee Dinger Main as a named plaintiff and add the allegations set forth in the original
Main action that include claims for alleged inaccurate wage statements and failure to provide
appropriate pay upon termination. The Company filed its answer to the amended complaint on
December 23, 2014. A status conference is scheduled for April 24, 2015.
On June 6, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Victoria Lee Dinger Main v. Dolgen California, LLC and Does 1
through 100 (Case No. 34-2013-00146129) (‘‘Main’’) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Sacramento. The Main plaintiff alleges that she and other ‘‘key holders’’
were not provided with meal and rest periods, accurate wage statements and appropriate pay upon
termination in violation of California wage and hour laws and seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages,
declaratory relief, restitution, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Main plaintiff seeks
to represent a putative class of California ‘‘key holders’’ as to these claims. The Main plaintiff also
asserts a claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceed under the PAGA.
The Company removed this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California (Case No. 2:13-cv-01637-MCE-KJN) on August 7, 2013, and filed its answer to the complaint
on August 6, 2013. On August 29, 2013, the plaintiff moved to remand the action to state court. The
77