XML 42 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Commitments and Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Jan. 01, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies
(13) Commitments and Contingencies

On August 13, 2009, the Company was served with a complaint filed in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego, entitled Michael Kelly v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. 37-2009-00095594-CU-MC-CTL, alleging violations of the California Business and Professions Code and California Civil Code. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of persons who purchased certain tennis, racquetball and squash rackets from the Company. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the Company employed deceptive pricing, marketing and advertising practices with respect to the sale of such rackets. The plaintiff sought, on behalf of the class members, unspecified amounts of damages and/or restitution; attorneys’ fees and costs; and injunctive relief to require the Company to discontinue the allegedly improper conduct. On July 20, 2010, the plaintiff filed with the court a Motion for Class Certification. The plaintiff and the Company engaged in mediation on September 1, 2010 and again on November 22, 2010. During mediation, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. On January 27, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion to preliminarily approve the settlement with the court. On March 21, 2011, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 15, 2011, the plaintiff filed with the court a motion for final approval of the settlement. On July 29, 2011, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment on the settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed that class members who submit valid and timely claim forms will receive a refund of the purchase price of a class racket, up to $50 per racket, in the form of either a gift card or a check. Additionally, the Company agreed to pay plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs, an enhancement payment to the class representative and claims administrator’s fees. Furthermore, the Company agreed that if the total amount paid by the Company for the class payout, plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs, class representative enhancement payment and claims administrator’s fees is less than $4.0 million, then the Company would issue merchandise vouchers to a charity for the balance of the deficiency in the manner provided in the settlement agreement. On October 19, 2011, the period for class members to submit claims forms expired. The Company has issued the required merchandise vouchers and otherwise made all payments and distributions required by the settlement agreement. The Company’s estimated total cost pursuant to this settlement is reflected in a legal settlement accrual recorded in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010. The Company admitted no liability or wrongdoing with respect to the claims set forth in the lawsuit. The settlement constitutes a full and complete settlement and release of all claims related to the lawsuit.

The Company was served on the following dates with the following nine complaints, each of which was brought as a purported class action on behalf of persons who made purchases at the Company’s stores in California using credit cards and were requested or required to provide personal identification information at the time of the transaction: (1) on February 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Maria Eugenia Saenz Valiente v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455049; (2) on February 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Scott Mossler v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455477; (3) on February 28, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Yelena Matatova v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455459; (4) on March 8, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Neal T. Wiener v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC456300; (5) on March 22, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of San Francisco, entitled Donna Motta v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-509228; (6) on March 30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Alameda, entitled Steve Holmes v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. RG11563123; (7) on March 30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of San Francisco, entitled Robin Nelson v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-508829; (8) on April 8, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of San Joaquin, entitled Pamela B. Smith v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. 39-2011-00261014-CU-BT-STK; and (9) on May 31, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Deena Gabriel v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC462213. On June 16, 2011, the Judicial Council of California issued an Order Assigning Coordination Trial Judge designating the California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles as having jurisdiction to coordinate and to hear all nine of the cases as Case No. JCCP4667. On October 21, 2011, the plaintiffs collectively filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, alleging violations of the California Civil Code, negligence, invasion of privacy and unlawful intrusion. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that customers making purchases with credit cards at the Company’s stores in California were improperly requested to provide their zip code at the time of such purchases. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the class members, the following: statutory penalties; attorneys’ fees; costs; restitution of property; disgorgement of profits; and injunctive relief. The Company intends to defend this litigation vigorously. Because this litigation remains in the preliminary stages and, among other things, discovery is still ongoing, the Company is not able to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome in this litigation or to estimate a range of potential loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome in this litigation at the present time. If this litigation is resolved unfavorably to the Company, such litigation and the costs of defending it could have a material negative impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition.

On October 31, 2011, the Company was served with a complaint filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, entitled George Zepeda v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC472450, alleging violations of the California Civil Code. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of mobility impaired/wheelchair-bound persons located in California. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company violated California state law by failing to make certain store locations accessible to individuals with disabilities. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, unspecified amounts of damages; attorneys’ fees and costs; and injunctive relief. The Company intends to defend this litigation vigorously. The Company’s estimated total cost for this litigation is not expected to have a material negative impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition.

On December 21, 2011, the Company was served with a complaint filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, entitled Sean Callahan v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp., et al., Case No. BC471854, alleging violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of the Company’s store managers and assistant managers in California for the four years prior to the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the Company failed to reimburse class members for business expenses incurred in connection with their employment as required under California law and failed to pay class members wages (regular and overtime) for time worked outside of recorded work time as required under California law. In February 2012, the Company and the plaintiff reached a confidential agreement providing for the full and complete settlement and release of all of the plaintiff’s individual claims and a dismissal of all claims purportedly brought on behalf of the class members in exchange for the Company’s payment of a non-material amount to the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s counsel. The Company admitted no liability or wrongdoing with respect to the claims set forth in the lawsuit. The court has approved the settlement, and all claims have been dismissed.

The Company is involved in various other claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate disposition of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition.