Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fifer v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California

October 15, 2019

DESTINY FIFER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
ADP SCREENING AND SELECTION SERVICES, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER RE: DKT. NOS. 17, 23

          LUCY H. KOH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Dominique Newman (“Plaintiff) brings the instant lawsuit against Defendant ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc. (“Defendant”). Before the Court are Plaintiffs motion to remand and Defendant's motion to transfer. Having considered the parties' briefs, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to remand and DENIES as moot Defendant's motion to transfer.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Background

         Plaintiff is a California resident. FAC ¶ 5. Defendant is a Colorado corporation that routinely does business in California. Id. ¶ 6. Defendant creates credit and background reports that Defendant then provides to employers who use these reports in connection with their hiring decisions. Id. ¶ 2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant provides these reports to employers without first obtaining a certification that the employers made the required disclosure to, and received authorization from, prospective employees, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(1). Id. ¶¶ 20-27.

         On an unspecified date, Plaintiff applied for employment with Smith and Noble, LLC (“Smith and Noble”). Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiff claims that after Plaintiff applied for employment, Defendant performed a background investigation of Plaintiff. Id. However, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant never obtained a certification from Smith and Noble that Smith and Noble had disclosed the existence of, and received Plaintiff's authorization for, the background investigation, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(1). Id.

         B. Procedural History

         On April 15, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara. See ECF No. 1-2. This complaint asserted only a single cause of action: failure to obtain certification in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(1). 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(1) dictates that a consumer reporting agency may only furnish a consumer credit report to an employer when the employer certifies that the employer satisfied the statute's disclosure and authorization requirements codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681(b)(2) and (3). 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(1)(A). On June 6, 2019, Defendant removed the case to federal court on the grounds of federal question jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. Then, on June 13, 2019, Defendant answered the complaint. ECF No. 6.

         On June 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 14 (“FAC”). The FAC replaced the two previous putative class representatives with Plaintiff, and the FAC asserted the same single cause of action for failure to obtain certification in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(1). Id. Defendant answered the FAC on June 28, 2019. ECF No. 18.

         On June 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to remand. ECF No. 17 (“Mot.”). On July 2, 2019, Defendant opposed the motion to remand, ECF No. 20 (“Opp.”), and on July 9, 2019, Plaintiff replied, ECF No. 21 (“Reply”).

         On July 16, 2019, Defendant filed the instant motion to transfer. ECF No. 23. On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff opposed, ECF No. 25, and on August 6, 2019, Defendant replied, ECF No. 26.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         A suit may be removed from state court to federal court only if the federal court would have had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”). If it appears at any time before final judgment that the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the federal court must remand the action to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

         The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). “The removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.