Huebner v. Radaris, LLC et al

Filing 48

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Chhabria on 11/23/2016. (vclc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2016)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HUEBNER, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-04735-VC

Plaintiffs,
ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER
BRIEFING

v.
RADARIS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

No later than February 21, 2017, the plaintiffs should submit a supplemental brief
addressing the following:
1. What authority exists for the form of injunctive relief sought and the intended
mechanisms of enforcing it.
2. Whether injunctive relief is available in a private FCRA action, and how the plaintiffs
would frame their request for injunctive relief under California law if they’re
unsuccessful under the FCRA. See, e.g., Hogan v. PMI Mortg. Ins. Co., No. C 05-3851
PJH, 2006 WL 1310461, at *10 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2006); Howard v. Blue Ridge Bank,
371 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1145 (N.D. Cal. 2005); see also Washington v. CSC Credit Servs.
Inc., 199 F.3d 263, 268 (5th Cir. 2000).
3. Whether any of the California-law claims or remedies are preempted by the FCRA. See,
e.g., Ramirez v. Trans Union, LLC, 899 F. Supp. 2d 941, 947 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
4. Whether either the CCRAA or the ICRAA permit an overlapping action under the FCRA,
and how the plaintiffs would frame their request for injunctive relief in the event of an
adverse ruling. See Coleman v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc., No. 15-CV-02588-JCS, 2015

WL 5782352, at *7 n.7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015).
5. Whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated the kind of concrete injury necessary for
Article III standing, particularly as to the section 1681b and section 1681e claims. See
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549-50 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016).
6. Whether the plaintiffs have adequately pled their statutory and common-law
misappropriation-of-likeness claims as required under Eitel. See Compl. (Dkt. 1) at
¶¶ 19, 28-30, 110, 111; Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986).
Page limits are waived, and the plaintiffs are encouraged to fully address any relevant
authorities unfavorable to their position. The Court anticipates setting a further hearing on
default judgment after receiving the plaintiffs’ supplemental brief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 23, 2016
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2