CONSUMER DATA INDUSTRY ASS'N v. King
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9250
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- CDIA challenges New Mexico's Fair Credit Reporting and Identity Security Act (FCRISA) as preempted by the federal FCRA before it takes effect.
- NM enacts FCRISA sections 56-3A-3.1(D)-(E), mandating CRAs to remove identity-theft information upon request unless later court or consumer intervenes.
- FCRA preempts state provisions concerning content of consumer reports and related duties, creating a uniform national standard.
- District court dismissed as non-justiciable, concluding no redressability for CDIA even if the Attorney General were enjoined.
- CDIA sues in federal court on associational standing for declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting preemption by FCRA.
- Court must determine whether relief against the Attorney General would redress CDIA's injuries given potential private enforcement actions by consumers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek injunctive relief against AG | CDIA injury redressable by injunction against AG | Nova Health limits redressability; injuries persist via private suits | CDIA has standing to seek injunctive relief |
| Standing to seek declaratory relief against AG | Declaration preempts enforcement and reduces threat of liability | Declaratory relief must parallel injunctive relief; not adequate alone | CDIA has standing for declaratory relief |
| Redressability under Nova Health and public enforcement power | Nova Health misapplied; AG has special enforcement authority | Nova Health controls; relief cannot fully redress injury | Nova Health not controlling; standing established |
Key Cases Cited
- Nova Health Servs. v. Gandy, 416 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 2005) (limits on redressability when defendant lacks enforcement power)
- Edmondson v. Chamber of Commerce of U.S., 594 F.3d 742 (10th Cir. 2010) (standing where public official enforces statute; injunction may redress injury)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2007) (standing exists when relief would reduce risk of injury)
- Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1982) (redressability requires injury likely to be redressed, not necessarily all injuries)
- Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (U.S. 1973) (continues to recognize state actors as proper defendants in standing analysis)