Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
1749.5.
(a) It is unlawful for any person or entity to sell a gift certificate to a purchaser that contains any of the following:
(1) An expiration date.
(2) A service fee, including, but not limited to, a service fee for dormancy, except as provided in subdivision (e).
(b) (1) Any gift certificate sold after January 1, 1997, is
redeemable in cash for its cash value, or subject to replacement with a new gift certificate at no cost to the purchaser or holder.(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any gift certificate with a cash value of less than ten dollars ($10) is redeemable in cash for its cash value.
(c) A gift certificate sold without an expiration date is valid until redeemed or replaced.
(d) This section does not apply to any of the following gift certificates issued on or after January 1, 1998, provided the expiration date appears in capital letters in at least 10-point font on the front of the gift certificate:
(1) Gift certificates that are distributed by the issuer to a consumer pursuant to an awards, loyalty, or promotional program without any money or other thing of
value being given in exchange for the gift certificate by the consumer.(2) Gift certificates that are donated or sold below face value at a volume discount to employers or to nonprofit and charitable organizations for fundraising purposes if the expiration date on those gift certificates is not more than 30 days after the date of sale.
(3) Gift certificates that are issued for perishable food products.
(e) Paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) does not apply to a dormancy fee on a gift card that meets all of the following criteria:
(1) The remaining value of the gift card is five dollars ($5) or less each time the fee is assessed.
(2) The fee does not exceed one dollar ($1) per month.
(3) There has been no activity on the gift card for 24 consecutive months, including, but not limited to, purchases, the adding of value, or balance inquiries.
(4) The holder may reload or add value to the gift card.
(5) A statement is printed on the gift card in at least 10-point font stating the amount of the fee, how often the fee will occur, that the fee is triggered by inactivity of the gift card, and at what point the fee will be charged. The statement may appear on the front or back of the gift card, but shall appear in a location where it is visible to any purchaser prior to the purchase thereof.
(f) An issuer of gift certificates may accept funds from one or more contributors toward the purchase of a gift certificate intended to be a gift for a
recipient, provided that each contributor is provided with a full refund of the amount that he or she paid toward the purchase of the gift certificate upon the occurrence of all of the following:(1) The funds are contributed for the purpose of being redeemed by the recipient by purchasing a gift certificate.
(2) The time in which the recipient may redeem the funds by purchasing a gift certificate is clearly disclosed in writing to the contributors and the recipient.
(3) The recipient does not redeem the funds within the time described in paragraph (2).
(g) The changes made to this section by the act adding this subdivision shall apply only to gift certificates issued on or after January 1, 2004.
(h) For purposes of this section, “cash” includes, but is not limited to, currency or check. If accepted by both parties, an electronic funds transfer or an application of the balance to a subscriber’s wireless telecommunications account is permissible.
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged standing to assert a UCL claim based upon the alleged violation of section 1749.5(b)(2). Plaintiff adequately alleges that he has been denied money to which he has a cognizable claim as he has a right under section 1749.5(b)(2) to a redemption of his gift card under $10 and alleges that Defendant denied him that right. The demurrer is sustained as to the First Cause of Action, and overruled as to the Second Cause of Action.
WALSH VS CHEVRON CORPORATION
MSC20-02389
Jun 03, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
Chico’s agrees to comply with Civil Code section 1749.5 in all of its locations in California. (Settlement Agreement, § 1.2.) 2. Chico’s will update its point of sale (POS) software to automatically provide refunds for gift cards with a balance of $10 or less. (Settlement Agreement, § 1.3.) Chico’s will perform internal audits to ensure compliance. (Settlement Agreement, § 1.7.) 3.
DIANA CALLEROS V. CHICO FAS, INC.
16CV03271
Jul 25, 2017
Santa Barbara County, CA
However, such conduct violates California law, specifically Civil Code section 1749.5(b)(2), which provides that any gift certificate with a cash value of less than ten dollars is redeemable in cash for its cash value. Section 1749.5 was effective January 1, 2008. After the conduct of written discovery and review of the information obtained thereby, the parties engaged in extensive negotiations with the assistance of an experienced mediator, Hon. John L. Wagner (Ret.) of Judicate West.
MARC ZEBRASKY VS BLAZE PIZZA, LLC
19CV00838
Jan 17, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
Civil Code section 1749.5 requires retailers to redeem gift cards for cash upon the consumer’s request when the gift card balance is less than $10. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Chico’s FAS, Inc. (Chico’s), which operates as a retailer offering the sale of apparel and accessories to the public at multiple locations in California, has failed to comply with this requirement and refused to redeem such gift cards for cash. Chico’s denies the allegations of the complaint.
DIANA CALLEROS V. CHICO FAS, INC.
16CV03271
Mar 28, 2017
Santa Barbara County, CA
(Defendant) agreed to the following: (1) to comply with Civil Code section 1749.5, (2) to confirm that its California employee manuals identify the gift card law, (3) to train its employees re: gift card policies, (4) to train and inform new employees that California law requires that a gift car must be redeemed for cash, upon a customer's request, when the gift card balance falls below $10.00, (5) to post a notice stating the above noted redemption condition in an employee only area, (6) to post a notice stating
SALAZAR VS BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSOP INC [E-FILED]
37-2016-00019990-CU-BT-CTL
Jun 08, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
Jan 30, 2009
Dismissal
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles County, CA
Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
Commercial
Contractual Fraud
Jun 15, 2004
Settlement
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles County, CA
Claims Involving Mass Tort (General Jurisdiction)
Torts
Mass Torts
May 27, 2010
Removal
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles County, CA
Other Commercial/Business Tort (not fraud/ breach of contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Commercial
Breach of Contract
Feb 13, 2019
Judgment (Other)
Santa Barbara County
Santa Barbara County, CA
Jan 29, 2004
Dismissal
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles County, CA
Claims Involving Mass Tort (General Jurisdiction)
Torts
Mass Torts
1 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Michelle Park Chiu, Bar No. 248421 2 M. Abigail West, Bar No. 324456 One Market, Spear Street Tower ELECTRONICALLY 3 San Francisco, CA Tel: +1.415.442.1000 94105-1596 …
Nov 08, 2019
San Francisco County, CA
Jan 31, 2020
BUSINESS TORT
Oo 7m DDH ee WN me NR NM NY DY wD KN RN DD eee ow DA A BR YW Se B&B SO we YR DH BR WY NY SK SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations ELECTRONICALLY P. CRAIG CARDON, Cal. Bar No. 168646 FILED ccardon@sheppardmullin.com Superior Court of California, BRIAN R. BLACKMAN, Cal. Bar No. 196996 County of San Francisco bblackman@sheppardmullin.com JAN 22 2013 ELIZABETH S, BARCOHANA, Cal. Bar No, 252377 ebarcohana@sheppardmullin.com ecl…
Mar 18, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
Jan 22, 2013
DECLARATORY RELIEF
SO Coe Oe BR WN E-FILED 12/21/2020 1:28 PM FINEMAN 0 POLINER LLP lero Cour Phillip R. Poliner, Esq. — SBN 156145 Superior Court of CA, Email: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com County of Santa Clara Neil B. Fineman, Esq. — SBN 177915 20CV375057 Email: Neil@FinemanPoliner.com Reviewed By: R. Walker 155 North Riverview Drive Anaheim Hills, California 92808-1225 Tel. (714) 620-1125 - Fax (714) 701-0155 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Nicole Letiecq SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN…
Dec 21, 2020
Active
Santa Clara County, CA
Dec 21, 2020
Business Tort/Unfair Bus Prac Unlimited (07)
SoU mI DH BF WN FINEMAN 0 POLINER LLP Phillip R. Poliner, Esq. - SBN 156145 Email: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com Neil B. Fineman, Esq. — SBN 177915 Email: Neil@FinemanPoliner.com 155 North Riverview Drive Anaheim Hills, California 92808-1225 Tel. (714) 620-1125 - Fax (714) 701-0155 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Adam Holt E-FILED 9/16/2019 1:27 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 19CV355132 Reviewed By: Yuet Lai SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA…
Sep 16, 2019
Inactive
Santa Clara County, CA
Sep 16, 2019
Business Tort/Unfair Bus Prac Unlimited (07)
1 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Michelle Park Chiu, Bar No. 248421 2 M. Abigail West, Bar No. 324456 One Market ELECTRONICALLY 3 Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 …
Nov 08, 2019
San Francisco County, CA
Jan 07, 2021
BUSINESS TORT
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.