297 F. Supp. 3d 1360
N.D. Ga.2018Background
- Plaintiff alleges Launch violated the FCRA by ordering a consumer report, receiving a false criminal-record result, withdrawing a conditional job offer, and failing to provide the report or FCRA rights notice before taking adverse action.
- Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide putative class of employees/prospective employees for whom Launch procured consumer reports and failed to provide required FCRA disclosures before adverse action.
- Launch moved to partially dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2), arguing the court lacks personal jurisdiction over non-Georgia (non-resident) class members after Bristol-Myers.
- The parties agree the court lacks general jurisdiction over Launch but that specific jurisdiction exists as to the named plaintiff's Georgia-based claim.
- Magistrate Judge Baverman recommended denying the motion, reasoning Bristol-Myers (a state-court mass action) does not control federal class actions and Rule 23 protections and certification requirements address due-process concerns.
- The district judge adopted the R&R without objection and denied Launch's partial motion to dismiss as to non-resident class members.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bristol-Myers bars adjudication in federal court of non-resident class members' claims when specific jurisdiction exists for the named plaintiff | Bristol-Myers addressed state-court mass actions and does not apply to federal class actions; Rule 23 and due-process safeguards permit nationwide classes adjudicated where named plaintiff establishes specific jurisdiction | Bristol-Myers' logic restricts exercising jurisdiction over out-of-state plaintiffs; unnamed class members cannot "ride along" on named plaintiff's specific jurisdiction — forum must have general jurisdiction over defendant for nationwide class | Denied: Bristol-Myers does not foreclose federal class actions; specific jurisdiction over named plaintiff can support adjudication of absent non-resident class members given Rule 23 protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (U.S. 2017) (limits state-court exercise of specific jurisdiction in mass actions where nonresident claims lack connection to forum)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (standard for general jurisdiction)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (U.S. 1985) (due-process protections for absent class members)
- Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1987) (personal-jurisdiction principles)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (class-action procedure and representative litigation)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Tr., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice standard under due process)
- Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2002) (treatment of unnamed class members as parties varies by context)
- Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (U.S. 2011) (limits on unnamed class members as parties pre-certification)
- Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1974) (tolling effect of class filings)
- Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1940) (equity origins of class actions)
- World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (personal jurisdiction and federalism principles)