On June 2, 2016, the Motor Oil Lawsuits were centralized in a matter styled In re Dollar General Corp. Motor Oil Litigation, Case MDL No. 2709, before the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (“Motor Oil MDL”). In their consolidated amended complaint, the plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL sought to certify 2 nationwide classes and multiple statewide sub-classes and for each putative class member some or all of the following relief: compensatory damages, injunctive relief, statutory damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The Company’s motion to dismiss the allegations raised in the consolidated amended complaint was granted in part and denied in part on August 3, 2017. To the extent additional consumer lawsuits alleging violation of laws relating to the labeling, marketing and sale of Dollar General private-label motor oil have been or will be filed, the Company expects that such lawsuits will be transferred to the Motor Oil MDL.
In May 2017, the Company received a Notice of Proposed Action from the Office of the New Mexico Attorney General (the “New Mexico AG”) which alleges that the Company’s labeling, marketing and sale of certain Dollar General private-label motor oil violated New Mexico law (the “New Mexico Motor Oil Matter”). The State is represented in connection with this matter by counsel for plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL.
On June 20, 2017, the New Mexico AG filed an action in the First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, New Mexico pertaining to the New Mexico Motor Oil Matter. (Hector H. Balderas v. Dolgencorp, LLC, Case No. D-101-cv-2017-01562). On May 4, 2020, the Company’s motion to dismiss the action was denied.
On September 1, 2017, the Mississippi Attorney General (the “Mississippi AG”), who also is represented by the counsel for plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL, filed an action in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi alleging that the Company’s labeling, marketing and sale of certain Dollar General private-label motor oil violated Mississippi law. (Jim Hood v. Dollar General Corporation, Case No. G2017-1229 T/1) (the “Mississippi Motor Oil Matter”). The Company removed this matter to Mississippi federal court on October 5, 2017, and filed a motion to dismiss the action. The matter was transferred to the Motor Oil MDL and the Mississippi AG moved to remand it to state court. (Jim Hood v. Dollar General Corporation, N.D. Miss., Case No. 3:17-cv-801-LG-LRA). On May 7, 2019, the Mississippi AG renewed its motion to remand. The Company’s and the Mississippi AG’s above-referenced motions are pending.
On January 30, 2018, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Office of the Louisiana Attorney General (the “Louisiana AG”) requesting information concerning the Company’s labeling, marketing and sale of certain Dollar General private-label motor oil (the “Louisiana Motor Oil Matter”). In response to the CID, the Company filed a petition for a protective order on February 20, 2018 in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana seeking to set aside the CID. (In re Dollar General Corp. and Dolgencorp, LLC, Case No. 666499). On February 7, 2020, the Company reached an agreement with the Louisiana AG to resolve this matter for an amount that is immaterial to the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.
On August 20, 2018, plaintiffs moved to certify 2 nationwide classes relating to their claims of alleged unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranties. In addition, plaintiffs moved to certify a multi-state class relating to their claims of breach of implied warranties and multiple statewide classes relating to alleged unfair trade practices/consumer fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranty claims. The Company opposed the plaintiffs’ certification motion. On March 21, 2019, the court granted the plaintiffs’ certification motion as to 16 statewide classes regarding claims of unjust enrichment and 16 statewide classes regarding state consumer protection laws. Subsequently, the court certified an additional class, bringing the total to 17 statewide classes. The court denied plaintiffs’ certification motion in all other respects. On June 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted the Company’s Petition to Appeal the lower court’s certification rulings. The Company’s appeal remains pending.
The Company is vigorously defending these matters and believes that the labeling, marketing and sale of its private-label motor oil comply with applicable federal and state requirements and are not misleading. The Company further believes that these matters are not appropriate for class or similar treatment. At this time, however, except as to the Louisiana Motor Oil Matter, it is not possible to predict whether these matters ultimately will be permitted to proceed as a class or in a similar fashion or the size of any putative class or classes. Likewise, except as to the Louisiana Motor Oil Matter, no assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of these matters on the merits or otherwise. Based on its belief that a loss in these matters is both probable and reasonably estimable, as noted above, during 2019, the Company recorded an accrual for an amount that is immaterial to the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole.