Jeffries v. Volume Servs. Am., Inc.
319 F. Supp. 3d 525
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff used a credit card to buy something from Centerplate and received one or more printed receipts that showed her full 16‑digit card number, expiration date, and brand in violation of FACTA (an FCRA amendment).
- Plaintiff filed a putative class action seeking statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n for the alleged FACTA violation.
- Centerplate moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction for lack of Article III standing) and 12(b)(6).
- Plaintiff alleged two harms: increased risk of identity theft from the printed receipt and the additional inconvenience of having to retain/shred the receipt.
- The court treated the key question as whether those alleged harms satisfied Spokeo’s requirement that an injury be both particularized and concrete.
- The court found Plaintiff’s allegations purely speculative (no disclosure, no theft, receipt lacked name) and therefore insufficient to show a concrete, imminent injury; it dismissed for lack of standing and denied leave to amend as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff has Article III standing for alleged FACTA violation | Receipt printing created a concrete injury via increased risk of identity theft and inconvenience | Alleged harms are speculative and not concrete because receipt was only given to Plaintiff and there is no allegation of disclosure/use | No standing; harms are speculative and not sufficiently imminent or concrete |
| Whether statutory damages under FCRA overcome Article III standing requirement | Congress provided statutory damages, so statutory violation suffices | Statutory remedy does not bypass Article III; plaintiff still must show concrete injury | Statutory damages do not satisfy Article III; plaintiff must still show concrete injury |
| Whether amendment could cure standing defects | Plaintiff sought leave to amend to add receipt details | Centerplate argued amendment would be futile | Denied; amendment would not cure lack of concrete harm |
| Whether the Doe defendants’ unidentified status affects jurisdiction | Not argued as dispositive | Centerplate noted jurisdictional defect independent of Doe identities | Doe identities immaterial; jurisdiction dismissed for lack of standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. 2016) (Article III injury must be both particularized and concrete; statutory violation alone may not suffice)
- Hancock v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 830 F.3d 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (statutory violation alleging collection/recording of zip codes did not allege a concrete risk of real harm)
- Attias v. CareFirst, Inc., 865 F.3d 620 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (data breach where sensitive information was accessed created a substantial, concrete risk of identity theft for standing)
- Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 879 F.3d 339 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (inaccurate database entries that were not accessed by third parties did not create a concrete injury)
- In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Inc. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2017) (unauthorized access/dissemination of private information in a data breach can establish concrete injury)