Meyer et al v. National Tenant Network, Inc.

Filing 57

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING AND RESCHEDULING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 5/13/2014. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HAROLD MEYER, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-03187-JSC

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

NATIONAL TENANT NETWORK, INC.,

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING
AND RESCHEDULING HEARING ON
MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Now pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ third claim in

14

their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) for violation of Section 1785.18(a) of the California

15

Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”). (Dkt. No. 51.) Plaintiffs allege that

16

Defendant violated the CCRAA by failing to include in the credit report given to Plaintiffs’

17

prospective landlord/employer the name of the third-party vendor that supplied Plaintiff Harold

18

Meyer’s erroneous criminal record. Plaintiffs further allege that they were injured by Defendant’s

19

failure to supply the source of the information in the report because Defendant’s conduct

20

“protracted” Plaintiffs’ efforts to discover from where the erroneous information derived. Even if

21

they were not injured, Plaintiffs assert that they can nevertheless bring their claim and enjoin

22

Defendant from selling consumer reports without identifying the source of public record

23

information. (See Dkt. No. 55-1 at 8 (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.31(b)).)

24

Defendant is a business based in Oregon. The non-party who purchased the credit report

25

in question from Defendant is also located in Oregon. While not entirely clear from the face of the

26

TAC, it appears that Plaintiffs have been California residents for the entire relevant time period

27

(though they were trying to move to Oregon). The presumption against extraterritoriality, which

28

Defendant raises for the first time in its reply brief, requires courts to “presume the Legislature did

1

not intend a statute to be operative, with respect to occurrences outside the state, . . . unless such

2

intention is clearly expressed or reasonably to be inferred from the language of the act or from its

3

purpose, subject matter or history.” Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal. 4th 1191, 1207(2011). “The

4

presumption against extraterritoriality is one against an intent to encompass conduct occurring in a

5

foreign jurisdiction in the prohibitions and remedies of a domestic statute.” Diamond Multimedia

6

Sys., Inc. v. Super. Ct., 19 Cal. 4th 1036, 1059 n.20 (1999); see also N. Alaska Salmon Co. v.

7

Pillsbury, 174 Cal. 1, 4 (1916) (“Although a state may have the power to legislate concerning the

8

rights and obligations of its citizens with regard to transactions accurring [sic] beyond its

9

boundaries, the presumption is that it did not intend to give its statutes any extraterritorial
effect.”). Defendant contends that because the TAC seeks to apply the CCRAA to conduct

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

occurring in Oregon that did not cause an injury to California residents in California, the

12

presumption against extraterritoriality applies. Defendant requests that the Court order

13

supplemental briefing on the issue and reschedule the hearing on its motion to dismiss.

14

Since Defendant would be entitled to move for judgment on the pleadings under Rule

15

12(c) even if the Court were to deny its request, it is more efficient to consider and rule on the

16

issues raised at one time. The Court accordingly sets the following supplemental briefing

17

schedule on the issue of extraterritoriality:

18
19

Defendant’s supplemental motion to dismiss due by:

May 21, 2014

20

Plaintiffs’ supplemental opposition due by:

May 28, 2014

21

Defendant’s reply due by:

June 2, 2014

22

Hearing:

June 19, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.

23
24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 13, 2014
______________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

28
2