Fosbrink v. Area Wide Protective, Inc.
Filing
28
ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Renewed Motion to Strike Class Allegations 20 is DENIED. Defendant shall respond to the Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 8/23/2017. (LN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
WILLIAM FOSBRINK, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 8:17-cv-1154-T-30TBM
AREA WIDE PROTECTIVE, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff is suing his former employer for alleged violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (“FCRA”) related to employment background checks. The claims are
brought on behalf of Plaintiff and classes of similarly situated persons. Defendant asks the
Court to dismiss the Amended Complaint and strike the class allegations. But because the
Amended Complaint states a claim and a determination of whether to certify the proposed
class is premature, the Court concludes the Motion should be denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff applied to work as a traffic control specialist for Defendant in February
2016. (Doc. 17, ¶ 34). As a condition of his employment, Defendant made Plaintiff sign a
form authorizing Defendant to receive periodic background checks on him. (Doc. 17, ¶ 55).
While employed, Plaintiff alleges Defendant did obtain a background check on him. (Doc.
17, ¶ 36). Defendant allegedly terminated Plaintiff in March 2017 because “something
came up on his background check.” (Doc. 17, ¶ 35).
Based on the above, Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s actions violated the FCRA in the
following three ways: (1) the form Defendant required Plaintiff to sign authorizing the
background checks violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) because the form was not a
stand-alone FCRA disclosure (Count I); (2) Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §
1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii) by conducting a background check on Plaintiff without receiving proper
authorization (Count II); and (3) Plaintiff violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A) by failing
to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the background check before Defendant relied on it to
take an adverse employment action against Plaintiff (Count III).
Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of himself and two classes of similarly
situated persons. Specifically, as to Counts I and II, Plaintiff brings the claims on behalf of
the following:
All Area Wide Protective, Inc. employees and job applicants in the United
States who were the subject of a consumer report that was procured by Area
Wide within five years of the filing of this complaint through the date of final
judgment in this action as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A).
(Doc. 17, ¶ 10). As to Count III, he brings the claim on behalf of the following:
All Area Wide Protective, Inc. employees and prospective employees in the
United States against whom adverse employment action was taken by Area
Wide, based, in whole or in part, on information contained in a consumer
report obtained within five years of the filing of this complaint through the
date of final judgment in this action, and who were not provided the proper
pre-adverse notice as required under 15 U.S.C. §1681b(b)(3)(A).
(Doc. 17, ¶ 11).
Now Defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) or strike the
class action allegations.
2
DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and
Renewed Motion to Strike Class Allegations” (Doc. 20) is not a motion to dismiss.
Defendant never argues that the Amended Complaint (Doc. 17) fails to state a claim under
Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Having reviewed the Amended Complaint, the
Court concludes it sufficiently states a claim for violations of the FCRA and denies the
Motion to the extent Defendant alleges it fails to state a claim.
The gist of Defendant’s Motion is that the Court should strike the class allegations
because Plaintiff cannot satisfy rule 23. Defendant argues the proposed classes (1) are
inadequately defined, (2) are incapable of being certified because the class depends on the
individual’s state of mind, (3) are incapable of being certified because liability must be
determined before the class members can be identified, and (4) do not have common issues
that predominate over questions affecting individual members. (Doc. 20).
Rule 23(c) directs a district court “[a]t an early practicable time after a person sues
or is sued as a class representative, ... [to] determine by order whether to certify the action
as a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A). Although a Court can determine whether to
certify a class based solely on a complaint, Mills v. Foremost Ins. Co., 511 F.3d 1300, 1309
(11th Cir. 2008), the issue is generally raised once a plaintiff moves for class certification.
As the Eleventh Circuit explained below, that is because the determination of whether to
certify the class usually requires some discovery:
[T]he Supreme Court has emphasized that class certification is an evidentiary
issue, and “it may be necessary for the court to probe behind the pleadings
before coming to rest on the certification question.” Comcast Corp. v.
Behrend, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1426, 1432, 185 L.Ed.2d 515 (2013)
(internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, “the determination usually should
3
be predicated on more information than the complaint itself affords. The
court may, and often does, permit discovery relating to the issues involved
in maintainability, and a preliminary evidentiary hearing may be appropriate
or essential....” Huff v. N.D. Cass Co. of Ala., 485 F.2d 710, 713 (5th
Cir.1973) (en banc) (internal citation and footnote omitted). After all, “class
determination generally involves considerations that are enmeshed in the
factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff's cause of action.” Wal–Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2552, 180 L.Ed.2d 374
(2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Herrera v. JFK Med. Ctr. Ltd. P’ship, 648 Fed. App’x 930, 934 (11th Cir. 2016).
Here, Defendant’s request to deny certification of the proposed classes is premature.
The allegations in the Amended Complaint are not so facially defective to allow this Court
to deny certification without Plaintiff being allowed to take discovery to try to satisfy the
requirements of rule 23. So the Court concludes the Motion should be denied, although
Defendant is free to raise the arguments again once Plaintiff moves for class certification.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Renewed Motion
to Strike Class Allegations (Doc. 20) is DENIED.
2.
Defendant shall respond to the Amended Complaint within fourteen (14)
days from the date of this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 23rd day of August, 2017.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?