United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
PAUL M. STELMACHERS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff,
VERIFONE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS RE:
DKT. NO. 54
J. DAVILA, United States District Judge
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003
(“FACTA”), an amendment to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act of 1970, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.,
provides that “no person that accepts credit cards or
debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more
than the last 5 digits of the card number . . . upon any
receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale
transaction.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1).
Unsurprisingly, its purpose was to assist in the prevention
of identity theft, which Congress recognized had by that time
reached “epidemic proportions.” H.R. Rep. No.
108-263, at 25 (2003). In this putative class action,
Plaintiff Paul M. Stelmachers (“Plaintiff”)
maintains in a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)
that Defendant Verifone Sytems, Inc. (“Verifone”)
violated FACTA's truncation requirement by printing more
than the last 5 digits of his credit card number on a receipt
he received after a cab ride. Dkt. No. 53.
jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Presently before the court is Verifone's third motion to
dismiss. Dkt. No. 54. Though Plaintiff opposes, he cannot
escape the fatal shortcoming in the SAC's standing
allegations. Thus, as will be explained, this court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction to proceed further and must grant
Verifone's motion to dismiss, without leave to amend, for
the reasons explained below.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
alleges that Verifone “produces machines that accept
credit cards or debit cards in the course of transacting
business . . . .” SAC, at ¶ 48. These machines
electronically print receipts documenting the transactions.
Id. Verifone also manages the machines after they
have been sold and programs its machines to produce receipts
only to the specifications of Verifone. Id. at
¶¶ 49, 50.
3, 2014, Plaintiff took a taxi cab ride in Las Vegas and used
his credit card to pay. Id. at ¶¶ 29, 30.
One of Verifone's machines was used to receive
Plaintiff's payment. Id. at ¶ 32. Once the
payment was processed, Plaintiff “received” a
“computer-generated receipt displaying more than the
last five (5) digits of Plaintiff's credit card
number.” Id. at ¶ 33.
alleges the receipt violated § 1681c(g) of FACTA, and
seeks to represent a class of individuals who received
electronically printed receipts from Verifone which displayed
more than the last five digits of the purchaser's credit
or debit card number. The court dismissed Plaintiff's
original Complaint on December 7, 2015. Dkt. No. 34. His
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was later
dismissed on November 21, 2016, for failure to plead a basis
for standing. Dkt. No. 52. Plaintiff filed the SAC on
December 7, 2016, and this motion followed.
is properly challenged through a Rule 12(b)(1)
motion. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242
(9th Cir. 2000). Such a motion challenges subject matter
jurisdiction, and may be either facial or factual. Wolfe
v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004).
facial 12(b)(1) motion involves an inquiry confined to the
allegations in the complaint. Thus, it functions like a
limited-issue motion under 12(b)(6); all material allegations
in the complaint are assumed true, and the court must
determine whether lack of federal jurisdiction appears from
the face of the complaint itself. Thornhill Publ'g
Co. v. General Tel. Elec., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir.
General Principles of Standing
constitutional standing doctrine “functions to ensure,
among other things, that the scarce resources of the federal
courts are devoted to those disputes in which the parties
have a concrete stake.” Friends of the Earth, Inc.
v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 191
(2000). This “case or controversy” requirement is
jurisdictional and cannot be waived. City of Los Angeles
v. Cty. of Kern, 581 F.3d 841, 845 (9th Cir. 2009). The
party asserting federal jurisdiction must carry the burden of
establishing standing under Article III. DaimlerChrysler
Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341 (2006).
the inquiry critical to determining the existence of standing
under Article III of the Constitution is
“‘whether the litigant is entitled to have the
court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular
issues.'” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737,
750-51 (1984) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S.
490, 498 (1975)). Three basic elements must be satisfied: (1)
an “injury in fact, ” which is neither
conjectural or hypothetical, (2) causation, such that a
causal connection between the alleged injury and offensive
conduct is established, and ...