1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
Rachel W. Dempsey (SBN 310424)
rachel@towardsjustice.org
David H. Seligman (pro hac vice forthcoming)
TOWARDS JUSTICE
2840 Fairfax Street, Suite 220
Denver, CO 80207
Tel: (720) 441-2236
Sparky Abraham (SBN 299193)
JUBILEE LEGAL
300 E Esplanade Dr, Ste 900
Oxnard, CA 93036-1275
Tel: (805) 946-0386
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
BREANN SCALLY,
Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated,
v.
PETSMART LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
(1) VIOLATIONS OF CAL. BUS. &
PROF. CODE §§ 2802, 2804
(2) VIOLATIONS OF CAL. BUS. &
PROF. CODE § 17200
(3) VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV. CODE
§§ 1788 et seq.
(4) VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV. CODE
§§ 1750 et seq.
(5) VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. &
PROF. CODE § 17500
(6) VIOLATION OF CAL. LABOR
CODE §§ 226.7 and 512
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
Plaintiff BreAnn Scally, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and
through her attorneys, brings the following allegations against Defendant PetSmart LLC.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
1. PetSmart, the largest retail pet chain store in the United States, provides grooming
services to over 13 million pets a year. PetSmart advertises to customers that their pets will be
“groomed with love” by professional stylists with extensive training. Meanwhile, the company
promises aspiring groomers free, paid training where they will receive exclusive instruction from
a dedicated teacher in a classroom setting as well as a supervised, hands-on grooming experience.
2. The reality California PetSmart groomers face when they enroll in training, which
PetSmart calls Grooming Academy, is something much different. Prospective groomers quickly
find themselves grooming dogs for paying customers and may have to struggle for attention from
overextended trainers or salon managers. Despite its academic-sounding name, Grooming
Academy does not provide employees with a recognized degree or credentialing. And once
groomers complete Grooming Academy, they are thrust into a demanding and sometimes
dangerous job, often working for barely above minimum wage.
3. But even when groomers find that the job is not what they signed up for, they are
not free to leave, because Grooming Academy is not actually free. PetSmart requires that all
employees who enroll in Grooming Academy sign a Training Repayment Agreement Provision
(“TRAP”). The TRAP requires PetSmart groomers to take on $5,000 of debt to PetSmart in
exchange for Grooming Academy training. PetSmart forgives that debt only if the worker stays at
their job for two years after they begin training, no matter how little they are paid or how poorly
they are treated. The TRAP even allows PetSmart to collect on the $5,000 debt if an employee
leaves their grooming job involuntarily, such as if they are fired or laid off.
4. That $5,000 far exceeds any reasonable value of the Grooming Academy and is
well beyond what PetSmart groomers, who make barely above minimum wage, are able to afford.
As a result, the TRAP strips PetSmart workers of bargaining power that they could use to seek out
employment opportunities in which they would be paid more or treated better.
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
5. This debt PetSmart saddles its employees with is illegal under California law. While
employers can charge employees for training if that training is primarily for the employee’s
personal benefit, employment law prohibits employers from charging employees for training that
primarily benefits the employer. Meanwhile, consumer laws provide certain protections for
borrowers who take out loans for personal or family use, and education laws require licensing for
providers of post-secondary education.
6. If Grooming Academy is primarily for PetSmart’s benefit, then the TRAP violates
California employment law by requiring employees to pay for their own job training. And if
Grooming Academy is primarily for the groomers’ personal benefit, then it violates California
education and consumer law by saddling groomers with debt under unfair and abusive
circumstances in order to pay for an unlicensed post-secondary school.
7. Either way, the TRAP takes advantage of vulnerable employees and undermines
California’s interest in the free and fair movement of workers.
PARTIES
8. Plaintiff BreAnn Scally was employed as a bather and a groomer at a PetSmart
location in Salinas, California, from February 2021 until September 2021. She currently resides in
Belmont, California.
9. PetSmart is a privately-held corporation owned by a private equity consortium led
by the firm BC Partners with its principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona. It is incorporated
in Delaware.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because it involves issues
of state law. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties because Defendants transact
business in this county and throughout the state of California, and Plaintiff resides in this county.
11. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§
395 and 395.5 and Business and Professions Code §§ 17203 and 17535 because Defendant
transacts business, and Plaintiff resides, in this county.
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. Grooming at PetSmart
12. PetSmart is one the largest retailers of pet-related products and services in North
America, with more than 1,300 stores in the United States and more than 150 stores in California
alone.
13. One major service that the company provides is pet grooming. PetSmart
prominently advertises its groomers as “[p]rofessional stylists with over 800 hours of training & 6
months apprenticeship.” It relies heavily on this training in its marketing materials, where it tells
customers that it “takes over a year to become a certified Pet Stylist” at PetSmart.
14. Prospective PetSmart groomers who do not have prior grooming experience are
required to go through PetSmart’s training program, which generally begins when employees are
hired as “bathers.”
15. In order to be eligible for promotion to groomer, bathers are required to bathe a
specific number of dogs and to complete a booklet that provides information and benchmarks on
the basics of dog bathing and grooming, including types of cuts and nail trims.
16. Once an employee has been a bather for the required amount of time and completed
the other prerequisites, they are eligible for training and promotion to groomer. PetSmart calls the
first stage of its groomer training “Grooming Academy.”
17. Grooming Academy involves three to four weeks of classroom training, which may
be provided either by PetSmart supervisors at an employee’s home salon or by district-level
trainers, also employed by PetSmart, at a separate training location. The classroom training
involves completing a PetSmart instructional pamphlet with information about grooming dogs,
including specific styles of grooms and specific breeds of dogs, and performing grooms of different
dog breeds in different styles (e.g., sporting terriers, long-legged terriers, poodles, etc).
18. PetSmart makes money off of grooms provided during Grooming Academy.
Customers are charged a discounted rate for grooms performed by trainees.
19. Despite its academic-sounding name, Grooming Academy does not provide
California PetSmart groomers with a recognized degree or licensing. Rather, PetSmart has
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
imposed it as the company’s own requirement for the groomers it employs. California does not
require any specific licensing or degree to work as an animal groomer.
20. The Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (“BPPE”), the agency that
regulates private proprietary higher education institutions in California, including other pet
grooming academies, has not approved the Grooming Academy to operate in the state.
21. PetSmart employees who complete Grooming Academy are typically provided
with a certificate at a “graduation” ceremony indicating they have completed the program, such as
in the images below.
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
22. Once groomers have completed Grooming Academy, PetSmart requires them to
complete 200 “supervised grooms” at their hourly pay rate—meaning without any additional
commission. Whether and how closely groomers are in fact supervised during these 200 grooms
depends on the staffing level of the PetSmart location where they work. Supervision during
supervised grooms is sometimes non-existent. PetSmart charges customers for grooms from
trainees completing their 200 “supervised grooms” at the same rate as it charges customers for
other grooms.
23. Once employees have completed the required 200 “supervised grooms,” they
become PetSmart Stylists in Training. After six more months working for PetSmart, they become
PetSmart Pet Stylists. Stylists in Training earn a 40% commission from each dog they groom, and
Pet Stylists earn a 50% commission.
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
II. The Training Repayment Agreement Provision
24. PetSmart’s Careers website advertises its “FREE Paid Training,” which it states is
“[v]alued at $6,000” and “includes over 800 hours with more than 200 different dogs.”
25. PetSmart also touts its training as free on its social media accounts, such as the
Twitter account below, and in job postings.
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
26. But PetSmart’s groomer training is not at all free. To the contrary, PetSmart charges
groomers $5,000 for Grooming Academy, and an additional $500 for a set of the grooming tools
that groomers need in order to perform their jobs. The only alternative groomers have to obtaining
tools from PetSmart is to purchse their own grooming tools at their own expense.
27. PetSmart requires employees to pay for the training and tools by taking on debt to
PetSmart. PetSmart forgives the debt only if the employee remains at PetSmart for two years after
the completion of their training.
28. The charges for training and the initial toolkit are set forth in a Training Repayment
Agreement Provision (“TRAP”) titled “Grooming Academy Training Agreement and
Authorization for Deduction from Wages.” The TRAP provides that the signer agrees to pay
PetSmart $5,000 (or, if they choose to accept the grooming toolkit, $5,500) if their employment
with PetSmart is terminated either voluntarily or involuntarily within two years of starting
Grooming Academy. This amount is reduced to $2,500 (or $2,750 with the grooming toolkit) if
the termination occurs more than a year after first anniversary of the start of Grooming Academy.
29. The TRAP requires the signer to aver that the training “is voluntary, for my personal
benefit, and is transferrable to grooming positions with other employers.”
30. The TRAP purports to authorize PetSmart to withhold money from wages and other
payments to the employee in order to satisfy the employee’s obligations under the TRAP.
31. The TRAP further requires that all employees pay any amount owed to PetSmart
within 30 days of the voluntary or involuntary termination of employment. Pursuant to the TRAP,
failure to pay the full amount within that time could result in PetSmart filing a civil action against
the employee to collect the outstanding TRAP debt, including costs, collection charges, attorney’s
fees, and interest at the “highest rate permitted by law.”
32. The effect of the TRAP is not only to shift onto PetSmart’s workers the costs of a
training that benefits PetSmart, but also to chill workers from seeking employment elsewhere,
undermining their bargaining power to seek out decent wages or better treatment from PetSmart
or a competitor.
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
33. Many PetSmart groomers make barely above minimum wage. For these workers,
$5,500 could be more than two months of pay. As a result, leaving their jobs in search of higher
wages could lead to difficulty paying rent or putting food on the table.
34. PetSmart can choose whether to enforce the TRAP under circumstances of its own
choosing. Employees do not know what criteria affect the decision of whether to enforce a
particular TRAP or not, which appears to be made at the corporate level, as store-level managers
provide inconsistent and often incorrect information about the likelihood of enforcement. Because
a PetSmart employee does not know whether or not PetSmart will enforce the TRAP until after
they have left the company, the chilling effect of the TRAP on employee mobility is universal even
when enforcement is inconsistent.
35. Groomers who do leave their jobs early may face aggressive collection efforts from
PetSmart that can harm their credit scores and make it more difficult for them to take out a loan,
secure housing, or obtain employment elsewhere.
36. Employees who don’t leave PetSmart during the two-year period after starting
goomer training are also significantly harmed. Many of these workers are stuck in low-paying and
unpleasant jobs, fearful of finding somewhere else to work. And because PetSmart knows that its
groomers are stuck in a TRAP of PetSmart’s own design, PetSmart can resist normal market
pressures to increase wages or treat their groomers better.
37. PetSmart’s TRAP creates a debt which it states is for “personal benefit”; however,
the TRAP does not contain any relevant consumer disclosures, such as Truth in Lending Act
disclosures or the Holder Rule Notice.
III. Obligation to Purchase Grooming Tools
38. As noted above, PetSmart offers its groomers a basic grooming toolkit when they
complete Grooming Academy, which it advertises as “free.” Groomers who accept these grooming
tools owe a $500 debt to PetSmart above the debt incurred through the baseline TRAP, which is
forgiven if they work as groomers for the company for at least two years.
39. Other than the optional grooming toolkit, PetSmart groomers are required to
purchase their own grooming tools. These tools can include, among others, clippers, scissors,
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
brushes, blades, and blade-holders. In addition, groomers are responsible for the costs of
sharpening their own tools outside of the work time. In all, these costs can amount to hundreds or
even thousands of dollars per year, which employees pay themselves out of pocket and for which
they are not reimbursed.
40. PetSmart is aware that employees spend substantial amounts of their own money
on the tools required to perform their jobs. Indeed, it offers salon employees a 35% discount on
tools purchased to use in a Grooming Salon—i.e., tools that they use in the course of performing
their work as groomers beyond what they receive in the initial grooming toolkit. Tools and other
items purchased for personal use are eligible for a different, lower discount.
IV. Job Duties and Missed Meal and Rest Breaks
41. Groomers are frequently scheduled to groom one dog every hour, and sometimes
more. Grooming a dog is a time-consuming process that includes bathing and drying the dog,
combing and trimming the dog’s hair, and clipping the dog’s nails. Some dogs are more
cooperative than others, and for dogs that are skittish, badly behaved, or simply have thick fur or
are large, a regular groom can take several hours. As a result, groomers are under significant time
pressure. This time pressure is particularly acute for Stylists in Training and Pet Stylists, who are
paid on commission and who therefore are incentivized to groom as many animals as quickly as
possible.
42. In addition to bathing and grooming dogs, PetSmart bathers and groomers often
perform substantial administrative and other work, including intake and billing for grooming
customers and answering phones. They are also responsible for cleaning the pet salon between
grooms and maintaining a general level of sanitation.
43. These pressures may contribute to a dangerous working environment where
employees are required to groom dangerous or aggressive animals, and where there is not enough
time in the workday to maintain an adequate level of sanitation.
44. Keeping up with the required volume of work frequently means that employees do
not have a reasonable opportunity to take rest breaks during work periods of at least three-and-a-
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
half hours, or to take uninterrupted 30-minute meal breaks during work periods of more than five
hours per day.
45. Managers are aware that workers cannot take their legally entitled breaks. In
response to complaints from workers, they often blame the workers for not working quickly
enough.
V. BreAnn Scally
46. BreAnn Scally started working at the PetSmart in Salinas, California in February
2021 as a full-time bather. Scally was hoping to pursue a career in animal rescue and believed that
the free training PetSmart advertised would help her to advance in that goal.
47. While working as a bather, Scally helped groomers wash and dry dogs while also
learning certain basic grooming techniques, such as foot trims and sanitary trims. She charted her
progress in a PetSmart booklet that she was required to complete in order to be eligible to train as
a groomer.
48. In or around the end of April 2021, Scally completed her required work as a bather
and began Grooming Academy. Prior to beginning Grooming Academy, she signed a document
called “Grooming Academy Training: Agreement and Authorization for Deduction from Wages”
(hereinafter, the “TRAP”). This TRAP purported to bind Scally to pay PetSmart $5,500 if her
employment with PetSmart was terminated before the second anniversary of the start date of her
Grooming Academy training. Per the agreement, this amount would be reduced by one-half if she
left between the first and second anniversary of her Grooming Academy start date.
49. The PetSmart manager who had Scally sign the TRAP did not explain to her that
she was signing an agreement to pay PetSmart $5,000 for training if she left the company within
two years of beginning Grooming Academy.
50. Scally accepted the grooming toolkit that PetSmart offered in exchange for an
additional $500 debt.
51. Scally’s Grooming Academy trainer was the salon manager at the store where
Scally worked, and most of the training took place in the salon itself. Because the salon manager
was responsible for running the salon, including performing her own grooms and supervising four
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
to five other groomers and approximately three bathers, in addition to training Scally, there was
very little one-on-one training, and most of what Scally learned was by working through the
training materials on her own and watching other groomers do their jobs.
52. Grooming Academy took Scally approximately three weeks to complete, rather
than the four weeks of instruction that PetSmart advertises. The first week was largely solo
bookwork. During the next two weeks, Scally was required to practice grooming on the dogs that
came into PetSmart. If she had to practice a certain breed cut, she would perform that type of cut
on whatever breed of dog was available, and then re-cut the dog’s hair in a way appropriate for its
breed before returning the dog to the paying customer. PetSmart charged customers for grooms
that Scally performed while in Grooming Academy, with a 35% discount. These grooms took place
in the regular PetSmart salon.
53. Once Scally completed Grooming Academy, she was required to complete 200
“supervised grooms” before she was eligible to receive commissions as a Stylist in Training. In
practice, these 200 grooms were not closely supervised at all. The Salon Manager responsible for
supervising Scally was also performing her own grooms, overseeing other groomers and bathers,
and performing other management duties.
54. Throughout her employment at PetSmart, Scally and her colleagues were expected
to work through meal and rest breaks in order to stay on top of the large volume of work they were
required to perform. This work included everything from grooming animals to handling frustrated
or hostile customers to helping the salon manager with scheduling employees. It was a regular
practice for employees to clock out for a lunch break, as instructed by PetSmart, but continue
working with their supervisors’ knowledge, because they had no other option if they wanted to
complete the work required of them.
55. Scally quit her job at PetSmart on September 4, 2021, because she was struggling
under the stress of the job and unable to cover her bills on her salary, which was just above
minimum wage.
56. Prior to quitting, Scally spoke with her salon manager about the TRAP she had been
required to sign. She could not afford the $5,500 penalty for leaving less than a year after starting
13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
Grooming Academy, leaving her with the impossible choice of going into debt because she was
staying at a job that paid her below market wages and going into debt pursuant to the TRAP
because she left that job for a higher-paying one. Her salon manager said, however, that PetSmart
was unlikely to seek to collect on the debt if Scally earned enough money for the company by
grooming and upselling to make up for the cost of her training. As a result, Scally kept careful
track of the revenue she brought in for PetSmart and did not leave until she was comfortable that
she had earned back the cost of her training by September 2021.
57. Scally did not receive any communications about the TRAP from PetSmart or their
agents through the fall. However, in January 2022, a collection appeared on her credit report in the
amount of $5,500. The debt collector was IC System. Scally disputed the debt to Experian, but her
dispute was denied.
58. Scally did not receive any notice from PetSmart or IC System prior to the TRAP
debt appearing on her credit report.
59. After requests to IC System for more documentation regarding the debt, IC System
sent her a collection balance notice dated March 30, 2022 that identified the creditor as PetSmart.
60. On information and belief, IC System acted as PetSmart’s agent in its collection
activities directed at Scally regarding the TRAP debt.
61. On information and belief, PetSmart directs its agents, including IC System, to
engage in debt collection activities regarding TRAP debt. These collection activities include but
are not limited to furnishing information on credit reports and sending collection notices.
62. As a result of the new debt on her credit report, Scally’s credit score dropped
significantly, from the high 600s to the low 600s. This decrease meant that she was unable to co-
sign an apartment lease with her boyfriend, which she had been planning to do. She has also
avoided applying for additional loans, including additional credit cards, since the drop in her credit
score. Although she had been planning to return to school for a veterinary assistant degree, she
decided not to because she did not want to take on the additional student loans with her lowered
credit score.
14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
63. Scally has suffered an injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of
the TRAP.
64. Scally has suffered emotional distress because of the TRAP debt.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
65. Plaintiff Scally brings her class action claims under Code of Civ. Proc. § 382 on
behalf of several Classes, defined as follows:
TRAP Class: All individuals who have worked for PetSmart in California, received
training from PetSmart’s Grooming Academy, and are or have been subject to a training
repayment agreement within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.
Debt Collection Subclass: All individuals in the TRAP Class who have been subject to
debt collection activity from PetSmart or PetSmart’s agents regarding TRAP debt within
the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.
Grooming Tools Class: All individuals who have worked as a pet groomer at a PetSmart
in California and have purchased their own grooming tools (including via a forgivable debt
to PetSmart) within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.
Meal and Rest Break Class: All individuals who have worked as a pet groomer or bather
at a PetSmart in California within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.
66. Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all of them is impracticable.
PetSmart has over 150 store locations in the state of California, all or close to all of which operate
a pet salon and are staffed by groomers. Upon information and belief, the Classes are likely to
include more than 1,000 members each, with this number subject to change based upon discovery.
67. There are questions of law and fact common to the Classes that predominate over
any questions affecting only individual Class Members. Common questions for the TRAP Class
include, among others, (1) whether PetSmart’s training is transferrable or whether it provides
employees with a recognized degree or licensing; (2) whether PetSmart or employees are
responsible for the costs of training; (3) whether PetSmart engages in false advertising by
representing that its training is free; (4) whether the TRAP is an enforceable debt; (5) whether
PetSmart is engaged in unlicensed lending; and (5) whether PetSmart has provided requisite
15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
consumer disclosures. Common questions for the Grooming Tools Class include whether
grooming tools are necessary expenditures incurred by groomers in direct consequence of the
discharge of their duties. Common questions for the Meal and Rest Breaks Class include whether
PetSmart’s routine policy and practice was to schedule groomers and bathers such that they lacked
a reasonable opportunity to take their meal and rest breaks. Common questions for the Debt
Collection Subclass include (1) whether PetSmart or its agents made false or misleading
representations regarding the character or legal status of the TRAP debt; (2) whether PetSmart or
its agents threatened actions that it cannot legally take regarding the TRAP debt; (3) whether
PetSmart or its agents used false representations or deceptive means to collect the TRAP debt; and
(4) whether PetSmart or its agents attempted to collect an amount of TRAP debt not permitted by
law.
68. The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class Members. Plaintiff
worked for PetSmart within the relevant time period as a bather and a groomer, was trained at
Grooming Academy, is subject to a TRAP, and regularly worked through meal and rest breaks,
and was harmed as a result.
69. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class
and have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex litigation, class actions, and
employment and consumer law. Plaintiff’s claims are representative of the claims of the other
members of the Classes. Plaintiff and Class members sustained damages as a result of Defendant’s
conduct. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes, and Defendant has no
defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and her counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this
action on behalf of the members of the Classes. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel have any interest
adverse to the Classes.
70. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy, as joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable.
Individual litigation would not be preferable to a class action because individual litigation would
increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the complex legal and factual controversies
presented in this Complaint. By contrast, a class action presents far fewer management
16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and
comprehensive supervision by a single court. Economies of time, effort, and expense will be
fostered and uniformity of decisions will be ensured.
71. Class certification is appropriate because PetSmart has acted and/or refused to act
on grounds generally applicable to the Classes, making appropriate declaratory, equitable, and
injunctive relief and damages with respect to Plaintiff and the Classes as a whole.
COUNT I (in the alternative): ILLEGAL TRAP UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT LAWS
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 2802, 2804
(Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the TRAP Class against Defendant)
72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint.
73. California Labor Code § 2802(a) requires an employer to indemnify an employee
for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the
discharge of her his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer.
74. This right cannot be waived by contract. Cal. Labor Code § 2804.
75. Under California law, employers are responsible for the cost of employer-required
training undertaken by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of the employee’s
duties or due to the employee’s obedience to the directions of the employer, that is incurred for the
employer’s benefit and is not required by statute or ordinance.
76. PetSmart unlawfully charges its groomers, including Plaintiff and the TRAP Class,
up to $5,000 for completing employer-required training for the benefit of PetSmart that is not
required by California statute or ordinance, in violation of California Labor Code § 2802.
77. Plaintiff and the TRAP Class have been harmed in an amount according to proof at
trial, and seek reimbursement of all necessary expenditures plus any available damages, interest,
penalties, fees, and costs.
78. In addition, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the TRAP debt is
unenforceable according to California law and an injunction to prevent PetSmart from attempting
to collect on the TRAP debt.
17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
COUNT II: UNLAWFUL GROOMING TOOLS EXPENDITURES
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 2802, 2804
(Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the Grooming Tools Class against Defendant)
79. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint.
80. Groomers at PetSmart are required to use a variety of tools in performing their jobs.
These tools may include, among others, clippers, scissors, brushes, blades, and blade-holders.
81. PetSmart charges groomers for these tools in one of two ways. First, it offers
groomers a supposedly “free” toolkit upon completion of Grooming Academy that is not free.
Rather, it is provided pursuant to a forgivable $500 loan that groomers are liable to repay if they
leave PetSmart less than two years after receipt of the tools.
82. Second, it allows groomers to purchase their own tools directly, using either third-
party sellers or by purchasing through PetSmart. Employees who purchase their grooming tools
through PetSmart receive a 35% discount off of the commercial sales price.
83. These expenditures are incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of an
employee’s duties or of the employee’s obedience to the directions of the employer and are
required to be borne by PetSmart under California law.
84. Plaintiff and the Grooming Class have been harmed in an amount according to
proof at trial, and seek reimbursement of all necessary expenditures plus any available damages,
interest, penalties, fees, and costs.
85. In addition, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the grooming tools debt is
unenforceable according to California law and an injunction to prevent PetSmart from attempting
to collect on the grooming tools debt.
COUNT III (in the alternative): OPERATING AN UNLICENSED, UNAPPROVED
POST-SECONDARY INSITUTION
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200
(Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the TRAP Class against Defendant)
86. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint.
18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
87. California Education Code § 94886 provides in relevant part that “a person shall
not open, conduct, or do business as a private postsecondary educational institution in this state
without obtaining an approval to operate under this chapter,” where a private postsecondary
educational institution is a “private entity with a physical presence in this state that offers
postsecondary education to the public for an institutional charge.” Cal. Educ. Code § 94858.
88. Additionally, California Education Code provides that “a note, instrument, or other
evidence of indebtedness relating to payment for an educational program is not enforceable by an
institution unless, at the time of execution . . . the institution held an approval to operate.” Cal.
Educ. Code § 94917.
89. If Plaintiff did not incur the costs of PetSmart’s Grooming Academy in direct
consequence of the discharge of her duties as a PetSmart groomer but rather because of the
personal benefits of that training to her, then PetSmart’s Grooming Academy is a post-secondary
institution that is unapproved and unlicensed by the State of California.
90. PetSmart has engaged in unfair competition because it has offered postsecondary
education to its employees in exchange for a right to payment without approval to operate from
the BPPE. Relatedly, it has falsely represented that the TRAP debt is collectable from the Plaintiff
and the TRAP Class. These unfair and unlawful business practices have injured Plaintiff and the
Class. Plaintiff and the TRAP Class have been harmed in an amount according to proof at trial and
seek reimbursement of all necessary expenditures plus any available damages, interest, penalties,
fees, and costs.
91. In addition, Plaintiff and the Class seek a declaratory judgment that the TRAP debt
is unenforceable according to California law.
92. In addition, Plaintiff and the Class seek a public injunction to prevent PetSmart
from continuing to operate as an unapproved institution, and to prevent PetSmart from attempting
to collect on the TRAP debt.
19
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
COUNT IV (in the alternative): ABUSIVE PRACTICES RELATING TO THE
PROVISION OF A CONSUMER FINANCIAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200
(Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the TRAP Class against Defendant)
93. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint.
94. If Plaintiff did not incur the costs of PetSmart’s Grooming Academy in direct
consequence of the discharge of her duties as a PetSmart groomer but rather because of the
personal benefits of that training to her, then the TRAP is a consumer financial product under
California and federal law. Cal. Fin. Code § 90005(c); 12 U.S.C. § 5481(5).
95. If the TRAP is a consumer financial product, then PetSmart is a covered person
under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law and the Consumer Financial Protection
Act. Cal. Fin. Code § 90005(f)(1); 12 U.S.C. § 5481(6).
96. California and federal law prohibit covered persons from engaging in any abusive
acts and practices in connection with consumer financial products or services. Cal. Fin. Code §
90003(a)(1); 12 U.S.C. § 5531(d).
97. Under federal law, an abusive act or practice occurs when a covered person “takes
unreasonable advantage of . . . the inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer
in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service.” 12 U.S.C. § 5531(d)(2)(B). A
practice that is abusive under federal law is also abusive under California law.
98. PetSmart requires employees who participate in the Grooming Academy to pay for
this training through a TRAP. Employees who participate in the Grooming Academy to become
PetSmart groomers are not provided alternative options to finance the Grooming Academy other
than entering into the TRAP with their employer.
99. By requiring prospective grooming employees to agree to the TRAP, PetSmart
“takes unreasonable advantage” of the employees’ “inability to protect their interests in selecting
or using a consumer financial product.” 12 U.S.C. § 5531(d)(2)(B).
100. This unreasonable advantage was obtained as a direct result of consumers’ inability
to protect their interests because PetSmart required grooming academy employees to use a single
20
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
consumer financial product (the TRAP) offered by a single provider (PetSmart) with terms and
conditions dictated by that provider.
101. Because the sole financial product available to PetSmart employees also had the
effect of undermining their bargaining power by chilling them from seeking out employment for
a competitor, that product is inherently coercive.
102. Under federal law, an abusive act or practice also occurs when a covered person
“takes unreasonable advantage of…a lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the
material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service.” 12 U.S.C. § 5531(d)(2)(A). A practice
that is abusive under federal law is also abusive under California law.
103. Despite the company’s routine use of TRAPs, PetSmart’s website and employment
materials state repeatedly and publicly that its training, including Grooming Academy, is free, and
that it provides groomers with a free toolkit in connection with their training.
104. Moreover, because PetSmart can elect to selectively enforce the TRAP under
circumstances of the company’s choosing, PetSmart grooming employees do not know if PetSmart
will enforce the TRAP. PetSmart grooming employees are left at the whim of the company’s
arbitrary decisions when trying to determine whether to seek other employment.
105. By advertising that Grooming Academy is free while requiring prospective
grooming employees to enter into a TRAP, and by selectively and arbitrarily enforcing the TRAP,
PetSmart exploits the power it holds over its workers, “taking unreasonable advantage” of
employees’ and prospective employees’ “lack of understanding . . . of the materials risks, costs, or
conditions” of the TRAP. 12 U.S.C. § 5531(d)(2)(c).
106. This practice is also abusive under California law, because PetSmart is taking
unreasonable advantage of employees’ lack of understanding of the risks, costs, or conditions of
the TRAP to keep them from leaving the company. Cal. Fin. Code § 90003(a)(1).
107. PetSmart’s acts and practices relating to the TRAP are abusive.
108. These acts and practices constitute unfair and unlawful business practices, in
violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. These unfair and unlawful business practices have
injured Plaintiff and the TRAP Class.
21
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
109. Plaintiff and the Class seek a public injunction to enjoin PetSmart’s abusive acts
and practices relating to the TRAP.
COUNT V (in the alternative): UNLAWFUL PRACTICES RELATING TO THE
PROVISION OF A CONSUMER FINANCIAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200
(Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the TRAP Class against Defendant)
110. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs of this complaint.
111. California Financial Code § 22100 requires that all finance lenders, or “any person
who is engaged in the business of making consumer loans” must obtain a license from the
commissioner of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, the state agency that
regulates consumer credit. Cal. Fin. Code § 22009.
112. The California Financial Code prohibits any finance lender from making a
materially false or misleading statement to a borrower. Cal. Fin. Code § 22161(a)(1).
113. Issuers of closed end credit are required to provide certain disclosures pursuant to
the Truth in Lending Act (e.g., total amount financed; annual percentage rate; or terms of
repayment). 15 U.S.C. §§ 1631, 1638(a); 12 C.F.R. §§ 1026.17, 1026.18, 1026.24(d)(2).
114. Creditors who offer a finance sale must issue a notice to consumers pursuant to the
Federal Trade Commission’s Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Preservation of Consumers’
Claims and Defenses (“Holder Rule”) indicating that any future holder of the debt is subject to all
claims and defenses the debtor could assert against the seller. 16 C.F.R. § 433.2(a) and (b).
115. Defendant engages in unlawful practices under California law because it is offering
consumer loans without a license to do so. Additionally, Defendant engages in unlawful and unfair
practices because it represents that the TRAP debt is enforceable when it is not. These unlawful
business practices have injured Plaintiff and the TRAP Class.
116. Defendant engages in unlawful practices under California law because it is offering
consumer loans without including required disclosures under federal financial law, including the
Holder notice and the Truth in Lending Act disclosures.
117. These unlawful business practices have injured Plaintiff and the TRAP Class.
22
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
118. Plaintiff and the TRAP Class have been harmed in an amount according to proof at
trial, and seek reimbursement of all necessary expenditures plus any available damages, interest,
penalties, fees, and costs.
119. Plaintiff and the Class seek a public injunction to enjoin PetSmart from engaging
in these unlawful practices relating to the TRAP debt.
COUNT VI (in the alternative): VIOLATIONS OF THE ROSENTHAL ACT
CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1788 et seq.
(Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the Debt Collection Subclass against Defendant)
120. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint.
121. PetSmart regularly engages in debt collection activities regarding TRAP debt,
including but not limited to representing that employees and former employees owe TRAP debt,
and engaging agents and third parties to collect TRAP debt.
122. If Plaintiff did not incur the costs of PetSmart’s Grooming Academy in direct
consequence of the discharge of her duties as a PetSmart groomer but rather because of the
personal benefits of that training to her, then, pursuant to the Rosenthal Act, the TRAP transaction
is a “consumer credit transaction,” the TRAP is a “consumer debt,” and PetSmart is a “debt
collector.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2. PetSmart’s collection activities related to the TRAP debt are
covered by the Rosenthal Act.
123. For the reasons set forth above in Count III, the TRAP agreements are void, and
TRAP debt is void and unenforceable.
124. Because the TRAP is unenforceable due to PetSmart’s failure to obtain approval to
operate from the BPPE, debt collection activities by PetSmart and its agents regarding the TRAP
debt violate the Rosenthal Act. Specifically, PetSmart:
a. Violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A) by using false, deceptive, and misleading
representations of the character and legal status of the TRAP debt;
b. Violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5) by threatening to take action that cannot
legally be taken in connection with the TRAP debt;
23
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
c. Violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10) by using false representations or deceptive
means to attempt to collect the TRAP debt; and
d. Violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1) by attempting to collect an amount not
permitted by law.
The foregoing sections of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act are incorporated into the
Rosenthal Act through Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17. Each of the foregoing violations therefore
violates Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17.
125. The foregoing violations by PetSmart were intentional, were not the result of bona
fide error, and PetSmart does not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such errors.
126. The foregoing violations by PetSmart were done willfully and knowingly with the
purpose of coercing the Debt Collection Subclass to pay the TRAP debt.
127. As a result of each and every violation of the Rosenthal Act, Plaintiff and the Debt
Collection Subclass are entitled to recover from Defendant any actual damages pursuant to Cal.
Civ. Code § 1788.30(a); statutory damages for a knowing or willful violation up to $1,000 pursuant
to Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(b); and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Civ.
Code § 1788.30(c).
128. As a result of each and every violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as
incorporated through Cal Civ. Code § 1788.17, Plaintiff and the Debt Collection Class are entitled
to recover from Defendant any actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C.§ 1692k(a)(1); statutory
damages up to $1,000 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); and reasonable attorney’s fees and
costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3).
129. As a result of each and every violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as
incorporated through Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17, Plaintiff and the Debt Collection Subclass are
entitled to recover up to the lesser of $500,000 or one percent of the net worth of PetSmart pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B), and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692k(a)(3).
24
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
130. In addition, Plaintiff and the Debt Collection Subclass seek a public injunction to
enjoin PetSmart from continuing its unlawful, deceptive, and abusive practices relating to the
TRAP debt.
COUNT VII (in the alternative): VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER LEGAL
REMEDIES ACT
CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1750 et seq.
(Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the TRAP Class against Defendant)
131. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint.
132. If Plaintiff and class members did not incur the costs of PetSmart’s Grooming
Academy in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties as PetSmart groomers but rather
because of the personal benefits of that training to them, then the PetSmart Grooming Academy,
and accompanying TRAP, constitute a “service,” and Plaintiff and class members are “consumers”
as defined in Civil Code § 1761.
133. By its conduct as described above, PetSmart has engaged in deceptive practices that
violate the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code §§ 1770(a)(9) and (14), thereby entitling
Plaintiff and class members to relief under Civil Code § 1780. PetSmart’s violations include:
a. Advertising the Grooming Academy as “free” when it is not free in violation
of Civil Code § 1770(a)(9); and
b. Representing that the TRAP creates an enforceable right and remedy on
behalf of PetSmart, and obligation on behalf of Plaintiff and class members,
that it does not create, in violation of Civil Code § 1770(a)(14).
134. PetSmart’s violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act described above
present a continuing threat to class members and members of the public in that PetSmart continues
to engage in these practices.
135. Plaintiff and members of the TRAP Class seek equitable relief from PetSmart’s
deceptive practices in violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, including a public
injunction to enjoin PetSmart from continuing these practices.
25
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
136. Plaintiff and members of the TRAP Class are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees
and costs against PetSmart pursuant to Civil Code § 1780(d).
COUNT VIII: FALSE ADVERTISING
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 and 17500
(Plaintiff on behalf of herself, the TRAP Class, and the Grooming Tools Class against
Defendant)
137. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint.
138. California’s false advertising law prohibits the dissemination in advertising of any
statement that is known to be untrue and misleading.
139. California Financial Law also prohibits any finance lender from making a
materially false or misleading statement to a borrower through advertising, print, publishing or
other means. Cal. Fin. Code §§ 22161(a)(3).
140. PetSmart’s website and employment materials state repeatedly and publicly that
its training, including Grooming Academy, is free, and that it provides groomers with a free toolkit
in connection with their training.
141. This is untrue. Groomers are charged $5,000 for training in the form of a loan that
is fully forgivable only after they have worked for PetSmart for two years. They are also charged
$500 for the toolkit, also in the form of a loan that is fully forgivable only after they have worked
for PetSmart for two years.
142. The statements PetSmart makes about the cost of Grooming Academy, training,
and the toolkit are likely to deceive members of the public into believing that PetSmart employee
training and the toolkit are in fact free.
143. PetSmart knew or should have known that these statements were false, as they
required all employees who entered into Grooming Academy training to enter into an agreement
that set forth employees’ debt and repayment responsibilities.
144. PetSmart makes these false statements with the intent to induce members of the
public to go into debt with PetSmart as part of their employment with the company.
26
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
145. Plaintiff, the TRAP Class, and the Grooming Tools Class have been harmed in an
amount according to proof at trial, and seek damages and restitution, plus any available damages,
interest, penalties, fees, and costs.
146. In addition, Plaintiffs seek a public injunction to prevent PetSmart from further
spreading its false statements.
COUNT IX: FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL AND REST BREAKS
CAL. LABOR CODE §§ 226.7 and 512; IWC Wage Order No. 7
(Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the Meal and Rest Break Class against Defendant)
147. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint.
148. California Labor Code § 226.7(a) provides, “No employer shall require any
employee to work during any meal or rest period mandated by an applicable order of the Industrial
Welfare Commission.”
149. Wage Order No. 7 § 11(A) provides: “No employer shall employ any person for a
work period of more than five (5) hours without a meal period of not less than 30 minutes, except
that when a work period of not more than six (6) hours will complete the day’s work the meal
period may be waived by mutual consent of the employer and the employee.”
150. Wage Order No. 7 § 12(A) provides: “Every employer shall authorize and permit
all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each work
period. The authorized rest period time shall be based on the total hours worked daily at the rate
of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours or major fraction thereof. However, a rest period
need not be authorized for employees whose total daily work time is less than three and one-half
(3 ½) hours.”
151. As set forth above, during the relevant period, it was Defendant’s policy and
practice to regularly fail to provide employees with the opportunity to take compliant off-duty
meal periods.
152. Defendant also regularly failed to authorize and permit employees who worked
more than 3.5 consecutive hours in a workday to take off-duty rest breaks.
27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
153. As a result of Defendant’s policies and practices, Plaintiff and the Meal and Rest
Break Class were not authorized and permitted to take compliant meal or rest breaks.
154. Plaintiff and the Meal and Rest Break Class are entitled to recover one additional
hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each violation, plus any available
damages, interest, penalties, fees, and costs.
COUNT X: UNFAIR COMPETITION FOR UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT
PRACTICES, FALSE ADVERTISING, & UNLAWFUL DEBT COLLECTION
PRACTICES
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200
(Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all Classes and Subclasses against Defendant)
155. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint.
156. Defendant’s policies and practices violate several provisions of the law, as set forth
above, including:
• Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2802 (failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures under the employment laws);
• Cal. Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 (missed meal and rest breaks);
• Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 (false advertising); and
• Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17 incorporating 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e and 1692f (unlawful
debt collection).
157. These policies and practices constitute unfair and unlawful business practices, in
violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. These unfair and unlawful business practices have
injured Plaintiff and the Class.
158. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to restitution as well as injunctive and other
equitable relief against such unfair and unlawful practices in order to remedy past harms and
prevent future damages, for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT XI: DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CAL. CODE OF CIV. PROC. § 1060
(Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the TRAP Class against Defendant)
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
159. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint.
160. Plaintiff seeks a declaration pursuant to C.C.P. § 1060 that the TRAPs entered into
are void and unenforceable.
161. An actual, present, and justiciable controversy now exists with respect to the rights
of Plaintiff, the TRAP Class, and Defendant. Plaintiff contends that the TRAP is void and
unenforceable. Defendant, on the other hand, disputes this contention, as demonstrated by its
attempts to collect purported TRAP debt.
162. A judicial determination of the rights and obligations of Plaintiff the TRAP Class,
and Defendant is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
163. Plaintiff and the Class respectfully requests that the Court:
a. Certify the case as a class action on behalf of the Proposed Classes;
b. Designate Plaintiff as a class representative;
c. Designate Plaintiffs’ counsel of record as class counsel;
d. Declare that Defendant’s conduct is illegal under the various statutes cited here;
e. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin PetSmart and its officers, agents,
successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with them from
engaging in the unlawful practices set forth in this Complaint;
f. Award Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes all appropriate monetary and equitable
relief, such as restitution, disgorgement, and damages, including statutory and punitive damages
as available, in amount subject to proof at trial;
g. Issue a public injunction to prevent Defendant from further disseminating its false
statements about Grooming Academy to the public, from entering into TRAPs as an unapproved
educational institution, from engaging in debt collection activities relating to the TRAP debt, and
from all other unlawful activities relating to the TRAP;
h. Award costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees to the extent
allowable by law;
i. Provide pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and
29
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
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
j. Award such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems
necessary, just, and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.
Dated: July 28, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
By: ______________________________
Rachel W. Dempsey (SBN 310424)
David H. Seligman (Colorado Bar No. 49394), pro hac vice
forthcoming
TOWARDS JUSTICE
2840 Fairfax Street, Suite 220
Denver, CO 80207
Tel: (720) 441-2236
rachel@towardsjustice.org
Sparky Abraham (SBN 299193)
JUBILEE LEGAL
300 E Esplanade Dr, Ste 900
Oxnard, CA 93036-1275
Tel: (805) 946-0386
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
