Byrne v. Oregon One, Inc.

Filing 27

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation 22 and, therefore, DENIES Defendant's Motion 8 to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Court returns this matter to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 8/16/2017 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (gw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ROBERT D. BYRNE, individually
and on behalf of others
similarly situated,

3:16-cv-01910-SB
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
OREGON ONE, INC. an Oregon
corporation,
Defendant.

BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued Findings and
Recommendation (#22) on July 18, 2017, in which she recommends
the Court deny Defendant Oregon One, Inc.’s Motion (#8) to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

Defendant filed timely

Objections (#24) to the Findings and Recommendation.

Plaintiff

Robert D. Byrne timely filed his Response (#25) to Plaintiff’s
Objections.

The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make
a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's
report.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1 - ORDER

See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561

F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).
The Magistrate Judge and the parties relied on Spokeo, Inc.
v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), as the seminal case on the
issue of Article III standing to bring a claim for the alleged
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692, et seq.

The Court notes the Ninth Circuit recently

revisited Robins v. Spokeo following remand from the United
States Supreme Court.
2017).

No. 11-56843, slip op. (9th Cir. Aug. 15,

The Ninth Circuit held the plaintiff in that case

satisfied the elements necessary for Article III standing to
bring a claim for the defendant’s alleged violation of the FRCA.
The court concluded “the FCRA procedures were crafted to protect
consumers’ concrete interest in accurate credit reporting about
themselves.”

Slip Op. at 15.

The court then analyzed the

plaintiff’s allegations to determine “whether he had alleged the
FCRA violations that actually harm, or at least that actually
create a ‘material risk of harm’ to, this concrete interest.”
Slip op. at 15.

The court concluded the plaintiff’s claim

“clearly indicates, at least in some way, [the plaintiff’s]
concrete interests in truthful credit reporting.”
16.

Slip op. at

The court noted the Supreme Court decision “requires some

examination of the nature of the specific alleged reporting
inaccuracies to ensure that they raise a real risk of harm to the

2 - ORDER

concrete interests that FCRA protects.”

Slip op. at 17.

The Magistrate Judge in this case thoroughly examined
Plaintiff’s allegations and concluded he sufficiently alleged a
substantive violation of his rights, a material risk of harm, and
an actual material risk of harm created by Defendant’s alleged
violation of FCRA requirements.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has

satisfied the requirements of Article III standing.
This Court has carefully considered Defendant’s Objections
and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings
and Recommendation.

The Court also has reviewed the pertinent

portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings and
Recommendation (#22) and, therefore, DENIES Defendant’s Motion
(#8) to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
The Court returns this matter to the Magistrate Judge for
further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 16th day of August, 2017.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States Senior District Judge
3 - ORDER