Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Spokeo Gets Lyft Off

November 4, 2016 by Amy Lane Hurwitz and Gary M. Pappas

The Northern District of California dismissed a Fair Credit Reporting Act case against Lyft upon finding that plaintiff lacked Article III standing based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016). The court found that plaintiff did not suffer any actual injury, or a real threat of such injury, as a result of Lyft’s alleged FCRA violations. The court’s ruling was consistent with several recent district courts’ decisions based on similar facts, and expressly rejected the Eleventh Circuit’s broad reading of Spokeo on the issue of “informational” injury.

Plaintiff sued Lyft on behalf of himself and a putative class who signed an employment application that contained “extraneous information” embedded with certain FCRA disclosures and failed to advise the applicant of his right to request a summary of his FCRA rights. As a result, according to plaintiff, Lyft procured his credit and background report in violation of the FCRA requirement to provide clear and unambiguous disclosures in a standalone document. Plaintiff did not contend, however, that he was confused about his rights or that he would not have consented to the background checks had he understood them. Moreover, Lyft hired plaintiff and he continued to be employed at the time he filed suit.

Lyft moved to dismiss under Spokeo, which held that to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing in the context of an alleged FCRA statutory violation, plaintiff must show an invasion of a legally protected interest that is both particularized and concrete. While Spokeo’s violation of plaintiff’s statutory rights under FCRA satisfied the “particularized” injury requirement, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit to conduct further analysis whether such bare procedural FCRA violations caused a “concrete” injury. The Court gave several examples of FCRA violations that would not satisfy the concrete injury requirement, but implicitly recognized that certain types of statutory violations can be sufficient to confer Article III standing based solely on the “informational” injury.

The California district court evaluated Spokeo and several post-Spokeo district court opinions holding that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing despite similar FCRA violations. In each of these cases, the background report did not contain any adverse information about the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff was ultimately hired despite the procedural FCRA violations. The court reasoned that even if Lyft obtained plaintiff’s background information without complying with FCRA disclosure requirements, the fact that plaintiff was hired and continued to be employed demonstrated that he could not meet Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement based on the examples in Spokeo.

The court also analyzed the Eleventh Circuit’s July 6, 2016 opinion in Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., which held that the “informational injury” language in Spokeo conferred standing on a plaintiff who failed to received certain Fair Debt Collection Practices Act disclosures in a collection letter. The court reasoned that Church was inconsistent with Spokeo because the cases cited by the Supreme Court involved informational interests of broad public significance whereas the alleged failure to disclose in Church did not. As a result, the California court declined to follow Church and granted Lyft’s motion to dismiss based on Spokeo.

Nokchan v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-03008-JCS (N.D. Ca. October 5, 2016).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Third Circuit Applies Presumption of Timeliness to Pre-Certification Motion to Intervene as Class Representative

Next Article »

Eleventh Circuit Clarifies CAFA Jurisdiction Continues After Dismissal of Class Claims

About Amy Lane Hurwitz

Amy Hurwitz is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida. Connect with Amy on LinkedIn.

About Gary M. Pappas

Gary Pappas is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida. Connect with Gary on LinkedIn.

Related Articles

  1. Data Breach Class Actions: 2015 Year in Review and 2016 Preview
  2. 2016 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey Reveals Important Trends in Class Action Management
  3. Nothing Crafty About Michaels’ Disclosure Under Spokeo

Get Weekly Updates!

2023 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • Class Action Survey: Class Action Settlements Reach Record Low
  • Class Action Survey: Baseless Claims a Common Concern for Corporate Counsel
  • Class Action Survey: Companies Report “Sweet Spot” for Class Action Panels

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified®: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2023 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.