Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00634/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00634-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel E. Figueroa, )

)

 Plaintiff, ) No. CV 09-634-TUC-DTF

)

 v. )

) ORDER

Choicepoint Services, Inc., )

)

 Defendant. )

 

Pending before the Court is Defendant Choicepoint Service’s Amended Motion to

Dismiss. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff Daniel Figueroa has not responded to the motion.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Figueroa filed his Complaint on November 4, 2009, alleging a violation of the Fair

Credit Reporting Act. (Doc. 1.) Time for service in this case ran on March 4, 2010. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(m). On March 23, the Court granted Figueroa’s request to extend the service

deadline (Doc. 9), allowing him until June 2, 2010, to file proof of service. (Doc. 11.) On

June 18, 2010, in response to an order to show cause (Doc. 12), Figueroa filed a proof of

service, indicating he had served Choicepoint on May 26, 2010. (Doc. 16.)

DISCUSSION

Choicepoint requests dismissal for failure to properly serve under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6).

First, Choicepoint asserts that Figueroa failed to properly serve the complaint and,

therefore, it is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(5). Choicepoint acknowledges that

Case 4:09-cv-00634-DTF Document 20 Filed 09/13/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Figueroa has filed, albeit untimely, a proof of service. (Doc. 17 at 2, 3.) Choicepoint

indicates it is still investigating whether service was properly made. In light of Defendant’s

concessions, and based on review of the motion, it is apparent that Choicepoint actually seeks

dismissal for Figueroa’s failure to comply with the Court’s deadline for filing the proof of

service, not for improper service. Plaintiff is obligated to comply with the rules and Court

orders, however, because service appears to have been properly completed before the

deadline, the Court declines to grant dismissal on this basis.

Second, Choicepoint argues that Figueroa’s complaint fails to state a claim and is

subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). As set forth below, the Court agrees.

Standard for Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the complaint

must allege facts sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949

(2009). The plausibility standard does not amount to a probability requirement, however, it

demands “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. In

evaluating a motion to dismiss, “all well-pleaded allegations of material fact are taken as true

and construed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Wyler Summit P’hip v.

Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998). However, “the court [is not]

required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of

fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th

Cir. 2001). Likewise, “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) can be based on “the lack

of a cognizable legal theory” or “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable

legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 4:09-cv-00634-DTF Document 20 Filed 09/13/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Analysis

Plaintiff sets forth the following allegations in his Complaint. In October 2007,

Figueroa was offered a job at a Target store. Target requested that Choicepoint perform a

criminal background check on Figueroa, which Defendant did on November 5, 2007.

Figueroa disputed the results of the background check. On December 27, 2007, Choicepoint

notified Figueroa that the criminal background report had been verified as accurate. Figueroa

alleges that Choicepoint acted negligently in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1681(b), which requires that an agency take reasonable steps to maximize the

accuracy of its reports. Figueroa alleges he was harmed by Defendant’s conduct and he

seeks lost wages, injunctive relief and legal fees. (Doc. 1.)

Figueroa’s complaint fails to allege sufficient facts indicating Choicepoint acted

negligently or did not take reasonable steps to ensure its report was accurate. Figueroa does

not allege what conduct of Choicepoint violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Most

significantly, Figueroa does not allege what, if anything, was erroneous in the criminal

background report created by Defendant, or what in the report Figueroa disputed. Plaintiff

has failed to state a claim that is facially plausible, thus, his complaint is subject to dismissal.

See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the motion to dismiss provides an

additional basis for granting Defendant’s motion. The Court’s local rules provide that if a

party does not respond to a filed motion, “such non-compliance may be deemed a consent”

to the Court’s granting of the motion. LRCiv. 7.2(i).

Based on the above assessment, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss. However,

when a court dismisses for failure to state a claim, the Court “should grant leave to amend

even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading

could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v.

N. Cal. Collection Serv., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990). Particularly because Plaintiff

is pro se, the Court finds that leave to amend should be allowed.

An amended complaint must contain all allegations a plaintiff is asserting against the

Case 4:09-cv-00634-DTF Document 20 Filed 09/13/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

defendant, as the original complaint will be superseded by an amendment and any arguments

not included in the amendment are waived. See London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d

811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff is directed to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which

provides the general rules for pleading a complaint.

Plaintiff is reminded of his obligation to comply with all rules of procedure and Court

orders, regardless of his pro se status. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

Failure to do so may result in dismissal of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). If Plaintiff does not amend his complaint in

the time set forth below, the Court will dismiss the case and enter judgment.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) is

GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Plaintiff choose to amend his complaint,

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint on or before October 4, 2010.

DATED this 13th day of September, 2010.

Case 4:09-cv-00634-DTF Document 20 Filed 09/13/10 Page 4 of 4