2.4.0.81060 - Disclosure - Legaltruefalsefalse1false falsefalseD2013Q2YTDhttp://www.sec.gov/CIK0001427553duration2013-01-01T00:00:002013-06-30T00:00:001true 1us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstractus-gaap_truenadurationfalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsexbrli:stringItemTypestringfalse0Legal2false 2us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlockus-gaap_truenadurationfalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseterseLabel1falsefalsefalse00<div style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times New Roman;"> 6.              Legal   On September 11, 2009, a putative class action was filed by an individual consumer named David Giambusso in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleged that Guitar Center and other defendants, including a trade association and a large musical instrument manufacturer, exchanged sensitive information and strategies for implementing minimum advertised pricing, attempted to restrict retail price competition and monopolize at trade association-organized meetings, all in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Subsequently, numerous additional lawsuits were filed in several federal courts (and one state court) attempting to represent comparable classes of plaintiffs with parallel allegations. Some of these lawsuits have expanded the group of defendants to include other manufacturers and others have alleged additional legal theories under state laws.   In December 2009 and January 2010, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued several orders which had the effect of consolidating all pending actions in federal court under the caption In Re Musical Instruments and Equipment Antitrust Litigation, Case No. MDL-2121 (“MDL 2121”), except one filed in Tennessee. A consolidated amended complaint in MDL 2121 was filed on July 16, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On August 20, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The hearing was held on November 1, 2010. The court rendered its opinion on August 19, 2011, granting the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint on September 22, 2011. On December 28, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued an order limiting the scope of discovery to non-public meetings at NAMM conventions. This ruling was affirmed by the District Court on February 7, 2012. On February 24, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  On March 26, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  The motion was heard by the court on May 21, 2012.  On August 20, 2012, the court dismissed, with prejudice, plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claim for failure to plead an antitrust conspiracy.  On September 9, 2012, defendants filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, requesting that the court amend the judgment to include the dismissal of plaintiffs’ state-law claims.  This motion was denied on jurisdictional grounds. Plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On March 29, 2013, defendants filed a joint brief in opposition, which is currently pending. With regard to the Tennessee action, we had previously filed a motion to dismiss on September 3, 2010. On February 22, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, for which we filed an additional motion to dismiss on March 24, 2011. The parties in the Tennessee action have agreed to cooperate with regard to a scheduling order, accordingly there is no hearing date set for the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs in the consolidated actions are seeking an injunction against further behavior that has been alleged, as well as monetary damages, restitution and treble damages in unspecified amounts. The plaintiffs in the Tennessee action are seeking no more than $5.0 million in compensatory damages. On July 18, 2013, the Tennessee court entered an order striking the $5.0 million damages disclaimer, thus permitting removal of the case to federal court.  This matter will be joined with MDL 2121, which remains pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We are not currently able to estimate a probable outcome or range of loss in this matter.   On August 31, 2011, a putative class action was filed by a former employee in San Francisco Superior Court in an action entitled Carson Pellanda vs. Guitar Center, Inc. The complaint alleges that Guitar Center allegedly violated California wage and hour laws, including failure to provide required meal periods and rest breaks, unpaid work time and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. On October 4, 2011, a first amended complaint was filed, adding new allegations, including wrongful termination. Guitar Center has retained defense counsel. The first amended complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages in unspecified amounts. Mediation was held on May 17, 2012.  The matter did not settle. On September 6, 2012, a Second Amended Complaint was filed, incorporating the allegations of a parallel wage and hour matter, Gomez vs. Guitar Center Stores, Inc., which was subsequently dismissed. Discovery continues. We are not currently able to estimate a probable outcome or range of loss in this matter.   On May 24, 2011, a putative class action was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in an action entitled Jason George vs. Guitar Center, Inc. and Guitar Center Stores, Inc. The complaint alleges that Guitar Center violated the California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act by requesting that its customers provide personal identification information in connection with the use of their credit cards. The complaint seeks monetary damages including statutory civil penalties in amounts of up to $1,000 per violation. This matter was subsequently consolidated with Justin Hupalo vs. Guitar Center, a putative class action alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, filed on October 27, 2011. Discovery continues. In December 2012, a motion for summary judgment was filed on behalf of Guitar Center. A tentative ruling was issued by the court granting Guitar Center’s motion for summary judgment.  The court ordered additional limited discovery. We are not currently able to estimate a probable outcome or range of loss in this matter.   On March 18, 2013, a putative class action was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in an action entitled Stewart vs. Guitar Center, Inc. and Guitar Center Stores, Inc.  The complaint alleges that Guitar Center allegedly violated California wage and hour laws, including failure to provide required meal periods, rest breaks, unpaid work time, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements.  Guitar Center has retained defense counsel.  Guitar Center has filed a Motion to Abate due to duplicative litigation in the pending Pellanda vs. Guitar Center action. We are not currently able to estimate a probable outcome or range of loss in this matter.   On May 29, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in an action entitled Neilan v. Guitar Center, Inc.  The complaint alleges that Guitar Center violated Mass. Gen Laws ch. 93 Section 105 by requesting that customers provide personal identification information in connection with the use of their credit cards. The complaint seeks monetary damages including statutory civil penalties and treble damages. Defense counsel has been retained. We are not currently able to estimate a probable outcome or range of loss in this matter.   On July 16, 2013, a putative class action was filed in Orange County Superior Court in an action entitled Johnson vs. Guitar Center, Inc. and Guitar Center Stores, Inc. The complaint alleges that Guitar Center allegedly violated California wage and hour laws, including failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, unpaid work time and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements.  The class has been defined as those employed by Guitar Center as instructors.  Defense counsel has been retained. We are not currently able to estimate a probable outcome or range of loss in this matter.   In addition to the matters described above, we are involved in various claims and legal actions in the normal course of business. We expect to defend all unresolved actions vigorously. We cannot assure you that we will be able to achieve a favorable settlement of these lawsuits or obtain a favorable resolution if they are not settled. However, it is management’s opinion that, after consultation with counsel and a review of the facts, a material loss with respect to our financial position, results of operations and cash flows is not probable from such currently pending normal course of business litigation matters. </div>falsefalsefalsenonnum:textBlockItemTypenaThe entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies.No definition available.false0LegalfalseLegalUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnowntruefalsefalseSheethttp://www.guitarcenter.com/role/DisclosureLegal12