Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Class Action Blogs -> Class Action Defense Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Class Action
: Class Action Defense BlogSong-Beverly Class Action Defense Cases–Party City v. Superior Court: California State Appellate Court Orders Summary Judgment In Favor Of Retailer In Song-Beverly Class Action Holding Zip Codes Not “Personal Information” Under Statute
By Michael J. Hassen
Defense Motion for Summary Judgment in Song-Beverly Class Action should have been Granted because Zip Codes do not Constitute “Personal Identification Information” within the Meaning of Song-Beverly Act California State Appellate Court Holds
Plaintiff filed a class action against Party City alleging violations of California’s Song-Beverly Act, Cal. Civ. Code, § 1747 et seq.; specifically, the class action complaint asserted that the retailer requested zip codes from customers in connection with credit card purchases, and alleged that this violated Song-Beverly which, inter alia, prohibits retailers from seeking “personal identification information” in connection with credit card/debit card purchases. Party City v. Superior Court, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Cal.App. December 19, 2008) [Slip Opn., at 3]. According to the allegations underlying the class action, plaintiff made a purchase at defendant’s store and the cashier “asked for and recorded her five-digit zip code before completing her credit card transaction.” Id. The class action alleged that a zip code constituted “personal identification information” within the meaning of Song-Beverly, and that defendant used its customers’ zip codes “to further its own business purposes, including target marketing to increase product sales.” Id., at 4. Defense attorneys moved for summary judgment on the ground that zip codes are not “personal identification information” within the meaning of the statute, and that defendant’s cashier did not require plaintiff to provide her zip code as a condition to using her credit card to purchase merchandise, id., at 5. The trial court denied the motion. Id., at 2. Defense attorneys filed a petition for writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal, id. The appellate court granted the petition and reversed the trial court, ordering that summary judgment be entered in favor of Party City in the putative class action.
Federal regulations define the Zone Improvement Plan (ZIP) Code system as “a numbered coding system that facilitates efficient mail processing.” Party City, at 6, n.4. The defense argument was two-fold. First, Party City submitted evidence that it “trains its cashiers to ask for the customer’s zip code before the type of payment is known, and to enter ‘99999’ into the register if the customer does not provide a zip code, and then to complete the transaction.” Id., at 5 (footnote omitted). The appellate court found it unnecessary to address this aspect of the defense motion because its interpretation of “the definitional issue” compelled judgment in favor of Party City. See id., n.3. Second, and the “key issue” identified by the appellate court, the defense argued that a zip code does not constitute “personal identification information” within the meaning of Song-Beverly. Id., at 5. Party City explained in its summary judgment motion that it “use[d] zip code information requested from customers for demographic purposes, to send promotional mailer to various zip codes throughout the country.” Id., at 5-6 (footnote omitted). To prove the point, defense attorneys submitted evidence that as of the year 2000, there were 25,000 individual addresses that shared plaintiff’s zip code and 27,500 individual addresses that shared the zip code of the trial court. Id., at 6. Moreover, Party City assures that “zip code information is made available only to the company’s marketing department, and zip code data is transmitted there alone, without customer names or credit card numbers.” Id. Further, “the company does not maintain a system or database that would allow it to locate a particular California customer’s address or phone number utilizing only zip code, name or credit card number.” Id., at 6-7.
Full post as published by Class Action Defense Blog on January 12, 2009 (boomark / email).
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Paxil Lawsuit
Paxil Claims, Lawsuits, and Injuries
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Rutland School District
Double pay offered as part of class action wage dispute settlement, pending court approval.
Storm8 Faces Class Action over Personal Information Harvesting through iPhone Games
Storm8 Faces Class Action of Personal Information Harvesting through iPhone Games
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Seattle Mortgage Co Faces California Class Action
Seattle Mortgage Co Faces California Class Action
Wegmans Food Market
alleging the retailer revealed too much information on their credit and debit card receipts, violating the FACTA law, and leaving customers open to identity theft

Another new class member discovery decision: CashCall, Inc. v. Superior Court
NC SCT Reiterates: No Assignments Of Error Needed From Summary Judgment
Chancery Stays Action in Favor of Pending California Case
Anastasia Beverly Hills Wins Eyebrow-Raising Multimillion Dollar Verdict in Salon Trade Secret Suit







