64 F. Supp. 3d 1378
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- This putative FCRA class action seeks statutory penalties for willful violations and the court denies class certification and grants summary judgment on all three claims.
- Named plaintiff Astrailia Dunford bought a background report from American DataBank to apply for a San Diego City College nursing program requiring an unpaid clinical internship.
- American DataBank never sent the report directly to the college or clinics but knew the report would be shared with them via the college’s consortium arrangement.
- Dunford’s report disclosed seven convictions (one felony) and, as challenged, several older dismissed charges from the same court file; she argues some entries antedate the report and should have been omitted.
- The report was obtained through a school-created process where students requested and paid for reports on a San Diego City College site, which included a release exonerating American DataBank, and the school forwarded the results to clinical sites.
- The court finds triable issues about whether the nursing internships constitute “employment” for purposes of the FCRA and whether the roundabout procurement can be treated as the usual employment-scenario procurement for purposes of liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procurement violated 1681b(b)(2)(A). | Dunford contends the disclosure form and roundabout setup violated 1681b(b)(2)(A). | American DataBank argues the form and process were permissible given educational purposes and industry practice. | Material facts unresolved; summary judgment denied on the issue. |
| Whether the reports were for employment purposes. | Report was used to evaluate eligibility for clinical internships, potentially an employment-like activity. | Process was educational rather than employment; facts require trial to decide employee status under Darden. | Triable questions remain; not resolved as a matter of law. |
| Whether clinics’ certifications under 1681b(b)(1) were obtained willfully. | Clinics did not provide required certifications and DataBank knew reports would reach clinics. | Record incomplete on clinics’ agreements and uses; not ripe for summary judgment. | Inappropriate for summary judgment; issues require further record. |
| Whether obsolete/dismissed information beyond seven years violated 1681c(a)(2)/(a)(5) and was willful. | Dismissed charges antedating the report should not have appeared; reported as stale information. | Haley and related authorities permit some use of dismissed charges in certain contexts; need more record to find willfulness. | Summary judgment denied; issues remain fact-specific and record-dependent. |
| Whether Dunford is an adequate class representative and the proposed classes satisfy Rule 23. | Dunford seeks nationwide disclosures and obsolete-information classes; argues predominance and superiority exist. | Dunford’s extensive criminal history and ongoing issues render her inadequate; proposed classes are not typical or manageable. | Class certification denied; individual claims only; Dunford not adequate class representative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (Supreme Court 2007) (objective reasonableness of reliance on statute governs reckless liability)
- Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329 (9th Cir. 1995) (FCRA remedial purpose favors liberal interpretation)
- Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (Supreme Court 1992) (common-law employee test governs employment status for purposes of FCRA)
- Hoke v. Retail Credit Corp., 521 F.2d 1079 (4th Cir. 1975) (addressed whether information constitutes employment-related consumer reports)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (Supreme Court 2011) (class certification requires common questions and appropriate classwide proof)