XML 47 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Commitments and Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies

(11) Commitments and Contingencies

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.

 

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.