Robrinzine v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.
156 F. Supp. 3d 920
N.D. Ill.2016Background
- Plaintiff Shaundrenika Robrinzine applied to work at Big Lots and signed a "Consent to Request Consumer Report & Investigative Consumer Report Information" form; Big Lots then procured a consumer report through Sterling Infosystems.
- The Consent Form included the disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained plus substantial additional material: alleged implied waiver language, detailed descriptions of information to be collected, and over a page of state-specific notices.
- Robrinzine sued under the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A), alleging the disclosure was not a required "stand‑alone" disclosure (i.e., the document did not "consist solely" of the disclosure) and that Big Lots acted willfully.
- Big Lots moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing the form was sufficiently clear and conspicuous and that literal reading of "solely" is unreasonable; it also argued the complaint insufficiently pleads willfulness.
- The district court evaluated the complaint under federal notice pleading standards, considered the Consent Form attached to the complaint, and accepted plaintiff's well‑pleaded allegations as true.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding the complaint plausibly alleges the Consent Form contained extraneous information that violates the FCRA’s stand‑alone requirement and adequately alleges willful violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the disclosure satisfied FCRA’s "stand‑alone" requirement | Consent form contains extraneous material (waiver, collection details, inapplicable state notices) and thus is not solely the disclosure | Form plainly discloses a consumer report will be obtained; literal reading of "solely" is unreasonable and context/purpose should control | Denied dismissal: allegations sufficient that form violated the stand‑alone requirement ("solely" read in its ordinary meaning) |
| Whether inclusion of implied waiver or other language is actionable | Waiver and other content render disclosure non‑compliant | Language is not a release/waiver and does not defeat the disclosure | Denied dismissal: court treats the alleged waiver and other extraneous content as plausibly violating §1681b(b)(2)(A) |
| Whether plaintiff plausibly alleged willfulness (to obtain statutory/punitive damages) | Big Lots certified to consumer reporting agencies it would comply with the stand‑alone rule yet used the challenged form—showing knowledge/recklessness | Mere failure to follow statute or negligence insufficient to plead willfulness | Denied dismissal: complaint alleges Big Lots knew the requirement and acted willfully/recklessly, sufficient at pleading stage |
| Whether the complaint states a plausible claim under Rule 8/Twombly–Iqbal | Complaint alleges concrete factual circumstances (form text, certification to CRAs, class allegations) | Plaintiff needs more detailed pleading of willfulness or harm | Denied dismissal: allegations are sufficient to state a plausible claim under federal notice pleading standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of Twombly plausibility framework)
- Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (definition of "willful" under FCRA: knowing or reckless violation)
- Patel v. United States, 778 F.3d 607 (statutory interpretation: give undefined terms ordinary meaning)
- Milbourne v. JRK Residential Am., LLC, 92 F. Supp. 3d 425 (reading "solely" literally supports finding violation when extraneous content included)
- Landrum v. Harris County Emergency Corps, 122 F. Supp. 3d 617 (inclusion of waiver may violate the stand‑alone disclosure requirement)
- Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732 (Rule 12(b)(6) standard discussion)
- Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720 (court may consider documents attached to or referenced in complaint)