United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND AND
DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER RE: DKT.
NOS. 17, 23
H. KOH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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”).
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.
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).
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 ...