Larroque v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 10 Motion to Remand. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
ELIZABETH LARROQUE,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND

v.

9

FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS SCREENING
SOLUTIONS, INC.,

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-5313-JSC

Dkt. No. 10

Defendant.

12
Elizabeth Larroque alleges First Advantage Screening Solutions, Inc. violated the Fair

13
14

Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681. In particular, Ms. Larroque alleges that First

15

Advantage provided her consumer report to her prospective employer, Pacific Hotel Management,

16

LLC, without first having Pacific Hotel certify that it had complied with the requirements of

17

Section 1681b(b)(1) of the FCRA. (Dkt. No. 4-1 at ¶¶ 9-13.) The Court previously remanded

18

this same lawsuit to state court on the grounds that the Complaint’s allegations did not support an

19

inference that Ms. Larroque suffered a concrete injury and therefore she does not have standing.

20

Larroque v. First Advantage, 2016 WL 4577257 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2016). Approximately one

21

year later, First Advantage again removed the action to federal court. First Advantage argues that

22

Ms. Larroque’s recent deposition testimony establishes that she suffered a concrete injury. Ms.

23

Larroque moves for remand. After considering the parties’ submissions, and having heard oral

24

argument on November 9, 2017, the Court finds that First Advantage has not met its burden of

25

showing that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this

26

action to San Mateo County Superior Court.1

27
1

28

Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c). (Dkt. Nos. 11, 12.)

DISCUSSION

1

“Standing is a necessary element of federal-court jurisdiction” and a “threshold question in

2
3

every federal case.” Thomas v. Mundell, 572 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Warth v.

4

Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)). Article III standing consists of three “irreducible constitutional

5

minimum” requirements: “[t]he plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly

6

traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a

7

favorable judicial decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016). First

8

Advantage, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of proving that standing

9

exists. Id.
The only conduct challenged by Ms. Larroque in this lawsuit is First Advantage’s alleged

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

failure to obtain a certification from Pacific Hotel as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(1). (Dkt.

12

No. 4-1.) Under that FCRA section, before First Advantage provided Pacific Hotel with Ms.

13

Larroque’s consumer report it was required to obtain a certification from Pacific Hotel that (1)

14

Pacific Hotel had disclosed to Ms. Larroque that it may obtain a consumer report about her in

15

connection with her employment application, (2) Ms. Larroque authorized Pacific Hotel in writing

16

to obtain her consumer report, and (3) if Pacific Hotel took any adverse action against Ms.

17

Larroque based on the report (such as not hiring her), it would provide Ms. Larroque with a copy

18

of her report and a description of her rights. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(3). It is undisputed that

19

Pacific Hotel adequately obtained Ms. Larroque’s written authorization to obtain her consumer

20

report. It is also undisputed that Pacific Hotel hired Ms. Larroque and therefore was not required

21

to provide her with a copy of her consumer report. Ms. Larroque’s claim is that First Advantage

22

did not obtain a certification from Pacific Hotel that Pacific Hotel did what it in fact did. To

23

remain in federal court First Advantage must show that Ms. Larroque has standing to make this

24

claim.

25

First Advantage contends that Ms. Larroque has standing because her recent deposition

26

testimony revealed that she suffered concrete injuries. In particular, she testified that her First

27

Advantage credit report contained inaccuracies and she complained that First Advantage violated

28

her right to privacy because she did not know what was in her First Advantage consumer report.
2

1

First Advantage has not met its burden of showing that Ms. Larroque has standing to bring the

2

claim made in this lawsuit.

3

First, as to Ms. Larroque’s injury from the alleged inaccuracies in her consumer report,

4

such injury is not fairly traceable to the conduct challenged in this lawsuit. This lawsuit has

5

nothing to do with the accuracy of Ms. Larroque’s consumer report; instead, it challenges First

6

Advantage’s failure to obtain a certification from Pacific Hotel. In a similar vein, her alleged

7

injury from the inaccuracies is not likely to be addressed by a favorable judicial decision. A

8

verdict in Ms. Larroque’s favor on the certification claim will have no impact on any alleged

9

inaccuracies in her consumer report.

10

Second, the “violation of privacy” to which Ms. Larroque testified was First Advantage’s

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

failure to disclose her consumer report to Ms. Larroque before First Advantage disclosed it to

12

anyone else; she complained that she did not know what was in the First Advantage consumer

13

report. Such an injury is not fairly traceable to the conduct Ms. Larroque challenges in this

14

lawsuit—First Advantage’s failure to obtain a certification from Pacific Hotel. Even if First

15

Advantage had complied with the FCRA certification provision, Ms. Larroque still would not have

16

been provided with her First Advantage consumer report before it was disclosed. Indeed, in this

17

lawsuit there is no dispute that Ms. Larroque was provided with all the disclosures to which she

18

was entitled. Similarly, her alleged violation of privacy is not redressable by a verdict in Ms.

19

Larroque’s favor. First Advantage has thus not established that Ms. Larroque has Article III

20

standing to bring her section 1681b(b)(1) claim.
CONCLUSION

21
22

First Advantage has not met its burden of showing that Ms. Larroque has standing to bring

23

her FCRA section 1681b(b)(1) claim. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Ms. Larroque’s motion

24

and REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 9, 2017

27
28
3

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4