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.

Witt v. Corelogic Saferent, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

April 8, 2016

CAROLYN WITT, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CORELOGIC SAFERENT, LLC, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER VENUE (ECF No. 51). For the reasons set forth herein, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

On February 2, 2016, Plaintiffs Carolyn Witt ("Witt"), Alphonso Robertson ("Robertson"), Christopher Allen ("Allen"), Eric Gonzalez ("Gonzalez"), Jourdin Edwards ("Edwards"), Lewis Hackett II ("Hackett"), Tony White {"White"), Shondel Roberts ("Roberts"), Willie Stanley, Jr. ("Stanley"), and David Holmes ("Holmes") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC, " ECF No. 50) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. In the SAC, Plaintiffs allege that defendants, CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC ("SafeRent") and its sister company CoreLogic National Background Data, LLC ("NBD") (collectively, "Defendants''), violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") . The SAC alleges four Counts under the FCRA. Count I, brought against SafeRent on behalf of a putative nationwide class, alleges that SafeRent violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681k(a), which requires that:

A consumer reporting agency which furnishes a consumer report for employment purposes and which for that purpose compiles and reports items of information on consumers which are matters of public record and are likely to have an adverse effect upon a consumer's ability to obtain employment shall-
(1) at the time such public record information is reported to the user of such consumer report, notify the consumer of the fact that public record information is being reported by the consumer reporting agency, together with the name and address of the person to whom such information is being reported; or
(2) maintain strict procedures designed to insure that whenever public record information which is likely to have an adverse effect on a consumer's ability to obtain employment is reported it is complete and up to date. For purposes of this paragraph, items of public record relating to arrests, indictments, convictions, suits, tax liens, and outstanding judgments shall be considered up to date if the current public record status of the item at the time of the report is reported.

15 U.S.C. § 1681k(a). The class alleged in Count I is:

All natural persons residing in the United States (a) who were the subject of a report sold by Defendant SafeRent; (b) where Defendant SafeRent's database indicates that the report was furnished for an employment purpose; (c) Defendant SafeRent's database showed that the report contained at least one adverse criminal record "hit;" (d) within the five period preceding the filing of this action and during pendency.
Excluded from the class definition are any employees, officers, directors of Defendant SafeRent, any attorney appearing in this case, and any judge assigned to hear this action.

SAC ¶ 58.

There is also an alternate sub-class:

All natural persons residing in the United States (a) who were the subject of a report sold by Defendant SafeRent; (b) where Defendant SafeRent's database indicates that it was furnished for an employment purpose; (c) where Defendant SafeRent's database showed that the report contained at least one adverse criminal "hit" from a jurisdiction form which Defendant SafeRent does not obtain at least four digits of an associated social security number; (d) within the five year period preceding the filing date of this Complaint and during its pendency.
Excluded from the class definition are any employees, officers, directors of Defendant SafeRent, any attorney appearing in this case, and any judge assigned to hear this Action.

Id. ¶ 59.

Count II, pled against both Defendants, alleges that, should the Court find that the background reports provided by Defendants were not for "employment purposes, " then Defendants furnished consumer reports without a permissible purpose in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b. The asserted class consists of:

All natural persons residing in the United States who were the subject of a report sold by SafeRent to NBD and/or NBD to any third party within the five year period preceding the filing of this action and during its pendency.
Excluded from the class definition are any employees, officers, directors of Defendants, any attorney appearing in this case, and any judge assigned to hear this action.

SAC ¶ 73.

Count III, brought against NBD on behalf of a putative nationwide class, alleges that NBD violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(e)(2), which requires that:

A person who procures a consumer report for purposes of reselling the report (or any information in the report) shall-
(A) Establish and comply with reasonable procedures designed to ensure that the report (or information) is resold by the person only for a purpose for which the report may be furnished under section 1681b of this title, including by requiring that each person to which the ...

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.