Petsmart 2014 Annual Report Download - page 108

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 108 of the 2014 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 117

  • 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
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117

Table of Contents
PetSmart, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements — (Continued)
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. In May 2013, the case was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and consolidated with another case
involving the same products, Adkins, et al. v. Nestle Purina PetCare Company, et al. Mediation discussions are ongoing.
On February 20, 2013, a former groomer in California filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County
of Orange captioned Pace v. PetSmart, Inc. PetSmart removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all former PetSmart employees in California since February 20,
2010, who were not paid all wages owed within 72 hours of their separations. The plaintiff challenges PetSmart's use of pay
cards for separation payments and seeks waiting time penalties, attorneys' fees, and other relief. The plaintiff also asserts
claims under California's Private Attorney General Act as well as individual claims for wrongful termination and disability
discrimination. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on January 31, 2014 which is currently scheduled for hearing
in March 2014.
We are involved in the defense of various other legal proceedings that we do not believe are material to our consolidated
financial statements.
F-25
Page 108 of 11
7
PETM - 2014.02.02 - 10
K
8
/
21
/
201
5
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/863157/000086315714000040/pet
m
-20140202x1...