1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

1 4 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Shaun Setareh (SBN 204514) 

shaun@setarehlaw .com 

H. Scott Leviant (SBN 200834) 

scott@setarehlaw .com 

SET AREH LAW GROUP 

9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 

Beverly Hills, California 90212 

Telephone: (31 0) 888-7771 

Facsimile: (31 0) 888-0109 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

MARCUS CHISM 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARCUS CHISM, on behalf of himself, all 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

PEPSICO, INC., a North Carolina Corporation; 

FRITO-LAY, INC., a Delaware Corporation; 

FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND 

SERVICES CORP., a Florida Corporation; and 

DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive 

Defendants. 

Chism v. PepsiCo, fnc. 

Case No.: 

CLASS ACTION 

COMPLAINT FOR: 

1. Violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 

1681 b(b )(2)(A) (Fair Credit Reporting 

Act); 

2. Violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681d(a)(l) 

and 1681g(c) (Fair Credit Reporting 

Act); 

3. Violation of California Civil Code § 

1786 et seq. (Investigative Consumer 

Reporting Agencies Act) 

4. Violation of California Civil Code § 

1785 et seq. (Consumer Credit 

Reporting Agencies Act) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Class Action Complaint 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

1 5 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Plaintiff, MARCUS CHISM (hereafter "Plaintiff'), on behalf of himself and all others 

similarly situated, complains and alleges as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiff brings this class and representative action against defendant PEPSICO 

INC., a North Carolina corporation ("PEPSICO"), FRITO-LA Y, INC., a Delaware corporation 

("FRITO-LAY"); FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP, a Florida 

corporation ("FIRST ADVANTAGE"); and DOES 1-100, inclusively (collectively, 

"Defendants") for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and similar 

California laws. 

2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants routinely acquire consumer, investigative 

consumer and/or consumer credit reports (referred to collectively as "credit and background 

reports") to conduct background checks on Plaintiff and other prospective, current and former 

employees and use information from credit and background reports in connection with their 

hiring process without complying with the law. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated current, former, and prospective employees, seeks compensatory and 

punitive damages due to Defendants' systematic and willful violations of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 1681 et seq., the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRAA") 

(Cal. Civ. Code § 1786, et seq.), and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act 

("CCRAA") (Cal. Civ. Code § 1785, et seq.). 

PARTIES 

6. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee 

working in the State of California from approximately October 2015 to September 2016. 

7. Defendant PEPSICO is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of 

North Carolina and also a citizen of California based on Plaintiffs information and belief. 

8. Defendant FRITO-LA Y is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of 

Delaware and also a citizen of California based on Plaintiffs information and belief. 

9. Defendant FIRST ADVANTAGE is a corporation organized and existing under 

the laws ofFlorida and also a citizen of California based on Plaintiffs information and belief. 

10. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names, capacities, relationships, and extents of 

participation in the conduct alleged herein, of the defendants sued as DOES 1-100, inclusive, 

but is infonned and believes and thereon alleges that said defendants are legally responsible for 

Chism v. PepsiCo, Inc. Class Action Complaint 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

1 4 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

2 0 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the wrongful conduct alleged herein and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious 

names. Plaintiff will amend the Complaint to aJiege the true names and capacities of the DOE 

defendants when ascertained. 

11. Plaintiff is infonned and believes and thereon alleges that, at all relevant times 

herein, aJI Defendants were the agents, employees and/or servants, masters or employers of the 

remaining defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting within the course 

and scope of such agency or employment, and with the approval and ratification of each of the 

other Defendants. 

12. Plaintiff alleges that each and every one of the acts and omissions alleged herein 

were performed by, and/or attributable to, all Defendants, each acting as agents and/or 

employees, and/or under the direction and control of each of the other defendants, and that said 

acts and failures to act were within the course and scope of said agency, employment and/or 

direction and control. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

13. This action has been brought and may be maintained as a class action pursuant to 

FRCP §23 because there is a well-defined community of interest among the persons who 

comprise the readily ascertainable classes defined below and because Plaintiff is unaware of any 

difficulties likely to be encountered in managing this case as a class action. 

14. Class Defmitions: The classes are defined as follows: 

A. FCRA Class: All of Defendants' current, former and prospective 

applicants for employment in the United States who applied for a job with Defendants at any 

time during the period beginning five years prior to the filing of this action and ending on the 

date that final judgment is entered in this action. 

B. ICRAA Class: All of Defendant's current, former, and prospective 

applicants for employment in California, at any time during the period beginning five years 

prior to the filing of this action and ending on the date that final judgment is entered into this 

action. 

C. CCRAA Class: All of Defendant's current, former, and prospective 

applicants for employment in California, at any time during the period beginning seven years 

prior to the filing of this action and ending on the date that final judgment is entered in this 

action. 

Chism v. PepsiCo, Inc. Class Action Complaint 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

15. Numerosity: The class members are so numerous that the individual joinder of 

each individual class member is impractical. While Plaintiff does not currently know the exact 

number of class members, Plaintiff is infonned and believes that the actual number exceeds the 

minimum required for numerosity under California law. 

16. Commonality and Predominance: Common questions of law and fact exist as 

to all class members and predominate over any questions which affect only individual class 

members. These questions include, but are not limited to: 

A. Wherein Defendants willfully failed to provide the class with stand-alone 

written disclosures before obtaining a credit or background report in compliance with the 

statutory mandates? 

B. Whether Defendants willfully failed to identify the name, address, 

telephone number, and/or website of the investigative consumer reporting agency conducting 

12 the investigation? 

13 C. Whether Defendants willfully failed to identify the source of the credit 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

report to be perfonned? 

D. Wherein Defendants willfully failed to comply with the FCRA, ICRAA 

and/or the CRAA? 

17. Typicality: Plaintiff's claims are typical of the other class members' claims. 

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants have a policy, practice or 

a lack of a policy which resulted in Defendants failing to comply with the FCRA, ICRAA, and 

CCRAA as alleged herein. 

18. Adequacy of Class Representative: Plaintiff is an adequate class representative 

in that he has no interests that are adverse to, or otherwise in conflict with, the interests of 

absent class members. Plaintiff is dedicated to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of 

class members. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of class 

members. 

19. Adequacy of Class Counsel: Plaintiff's counsel are adequate class counsel in 

that they have no known conflicts of interest with Plaintiff or absent class members, are 

experienced in class action litigation and are dedicated to vigorously prosecuting this action on 

behalf of Plaintiff and absent class members. 

20. Superiority: A class action is vastly superior to other available means for fair 

Chism v. PepsiCo, Inc. Class Action Complaint 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 4 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 1 

12 

1 3 

14 

1 5 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

2 3 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

and efficient adjudication of class members' claims and would be beneficial to the parties and 

the Court. Class action treatment will allow a number of similarly situated persons to 

simultaneously and efficiently prosecute their common claims in a single forum without the 

unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would entail. In 

addition, the monetary amounts due to many individual class members are likely to be relatively 

small and would thus make it difficult, if not impossible, for individual class members to both 

seek and obtain relief. Moreover, a class action will serve an important public interest by 

permitting class members to effectively pursue the recovery of monies owed to them. Further, a 

class action will prevent the potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments inherent in 

individual litigation. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

FAILURE TO MAKE PROPER DISCLOSURE IN VIOLATION OF THE FCRA 

(15 U.S.C. §§ 168lb(b)(2)(A)) 

21. 

22. 

23. 

(By Plaintiff and the FCRA Class against all Defendants) 

Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs ofthis Complaint as iffully alleged herein. 

Defendants are "persons" as defined by Section 1681 a(b) of the FCRA. 

Plaintiff and class members are "consumers" within the meaning Section 

1681 a( c) of the FCRA, because they are "individuals." 

24. Section 1681 a( d)( 1) of the FCRA defines "consumer report" as 

any oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer 

reporting agency bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit 

standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal 

characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or 

collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in 

establishing the consumer's eligibility" for employment purposes. 

Thus a credit and background report qualifies as a consumer report. 

25. Section 168la(e) ofthe FCRA defines " investigative consumer report" as: 

a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumer's 

character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is 

obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates 

of the consumer rep01ted on or with whom he is acquainted or who may 

have knowledge concerning any such items of information. 

Thus a credit and background report qualifies as an investigative consumer report. 

Chism v. PepsiCo, Inc. Class Action Complaint 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 5 of 16
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 

26. Section 1681 b(b) of the FCRA provides, in relevant part: 

Conditions for furnishing and using consumer reports for employment purposes 

(2) Disclosure to consumer 

1. 

11. 

(A) In general 

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person may not procure a 

consumer report, or cause a consumer report to be procured, for 

employment purposes with respect to any consumer, unlessa clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to 

the consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused 

to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the 

disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for 

employment purposes; and 

the consumer has authorized in writing (which authorization may 

be made on the document referred to in clause (i)) the 

procurement of the report by that person. (Emphasis Added). 

27. As described above, Plaintiff alleges, on infonnation and belief, that 111 

evaluating him and other class members for employment, Defendants procured or caused to be 

prepared credit and background reports (i.e., a consumer report and/or investigative consumer 

report, as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 168la(d)(l)(B) and 15 U.S.C. § 168Ia(e)). 

28. When Plaintiff applied for employment with Defendants, Defendants did not 

provide Plaintiff with required Disclosures and Authorizations ("Disclosure"). 

part: 

29. Instead, Defendants only provided a Notice ("Notice") which states in pertinent 

IMPORTANT NOTICE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW 

First Advantage does not guarantee the accuracy or truthfulness of the information as the 

subject of the investigation, but only that it is accurately copied from public records. 

Information generated as a result of identity theft, including evidence of criminal 

activity, may be inaccurately associated with the consumer who is the subject of this 

report. In California, First Advantage shall provide a consumer seeking to obtain a copy 

of a report or making a request to review a file, a written notice in simple, plain English 

and Spanish setting forth the terms and conditions of his or her right to receive all 

disclosures. 

30. Here, there is no disclosure stating that an investigative consumer report will be 

Chism v. PepsiCo, Inc. Class Action Complaint 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 6 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

1 0 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

1 6 

1 7 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

2 5 

26 

27 

28 

procured for employment purposes. 

3 1. Moreover, the consumer has not authorized in writing the procurement of the 

report. Here, Plaintiff has not signed any authorization. 

32. Because Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with any Disclosures or 

Authorizations, Defendants do not meet the requirements under the law. 

33. Under the FCRA, it is unlawful to procure or caused to be procured, a consumer 

report or investigative consumer report for employment purposes unless the disclosure is made 

in a document that consists solely of the disclosure and the consumer has authorized, in writing, 

the procurement ofthe report. 15 U.S.C. § l681b(b)(2)(A)(i)-(ii). 

34. Defendants' conduct in violation of Section 1681 b(b )(2)(A) of the FCRA was 

and is willful. Defendants acted in deliberate or reckless disregard of their obligations and the 

rights of applicants and employees, including Plaintiff and class members. Defendants' willful 

conduct is reflected by, among other things, the following facts: 

(a) Defendants are a large corporation with access to legal advice; 

(b) Defendants required a purported authorization to perform credit and 

background checks in the process of employing the class members which, although defective, 

evidences Defendants' awareness of and willful failure to follow the governing laws concerning 

such authorizations; 

(c) The plain language of the statute unambiguously indicates that inclusion 

of a liability release and other extraneous information in a disclosure fom1 violates the 

disclosure and authorization requirements; and 

(d) The FTC's express statements, pre-dating Defendants' conduct, which 

state that it is a violation of Section 1681 b(b )(2)(A) of the FCRA to include a liability waiver in 

the FCRA disclosure fonn. 

35. Based upon the facts likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable 

opportunity for further investigation and discovery, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have a 

policy and practice of procuring investigative consumer reports or causing investigative 

consumer reports to be procured for applicants and employees without informing such 

applicants oftheir right to request a summary of their rights under the FCRA at the same time as 

the disclosure explaining that an investigative consumer report may be made. Pursuant to that 

policy and practice, Defendants procured investigative consumer reports or caused investigative 

Chism v. PepsiCo, inc. Class Action Complaint 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 7 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

1 0 

11 

12 

13 

1 4 

15 

16 

17 

18 

1 9 

20 

21 

2 2 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

consumer reports to be procured for Plaintiff and class members, as described above, without 

infonning class members of their rights to request a written summary of their rights under the 

FCRA. 

36. Accordingly, Defendants willfully violated and continue to violate the FCRA 

including, but not limited to, §§ 1681b(b)(2)(A) and 1681d(a). Defendants' willful conduct is 

reflected by, among other things, the facts set forth above. 

37. As a result of Defendants' illegal procurement of credit and background reports 

by way of their inadequate disclosures, as set forth above, Plaintiff and class members have 

been injured including, but not limited to, having their privacy and statutory rights invaded in 

violation of the FCRA. 

38. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all class members, seeks all available remedies 

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n, including statutory damages and/or actual damages, punitive 

damages, injunctive and equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. 

39. In the alternative to Plaintiffs allegation that these violations were willful, 

Plaintiff alleges that the violations were negligent and seeks the appropriate remedy, if any, 

under 15 U .S.C. § 1681 o, including actual damages and attorneys' fees and costs. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

FAILURE TO GIVE PROPER SUMMARY OF RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF FCRA 

(15 U.S.C. § 1681d(a)(l) and 1681g(c)) 

(By Plaintiff and the FCRA Class against all Defendants) 

40. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully alleged herein. 

41. Section 168ld(a)(l) provides: 

Disclosure of fact of preparation 

A person may not procure or cause to be prepared an investigative consumer report on any 

consumer unless-

(1) it is clearly and accurately disclosed to the consumer that an 

investigative consumer report including information as to his character, general 

reputation, personal characteristics, and mode of living, whichever are applicable, 

may be made, and such disclosure; 

(2) is made in a writing mailed, or otherwise delivered, to the 

consumer, not later than three days after the date on which the report was first 

requested, and 

Chism v. PepsiCo, Inc. Class Action Complaint 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 8 of 16
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 

42. 

43. 

(3) includes a statement informing the consumer of his right to request the 

additional disclosures provided for under subsection (b) of this 

section and the written summary of the rights of the consumer prepared pursuant 

to section 168Jg(c) of this title; (Emphasis Added.) 

(4) Subsection (b) of Section 168ld(a)(l) provides: 

Any person who procures or causes to be prepared an investigative consumer report 

on any consumer shall, upon written request made by the consumer within a 

reasonable period of time after the receipt by him of the disclosure required by 

subsection (a)(l) ofthis section (a)(!) ofthis section, make a complete and accurate 

disclosure of the nature and scope of the investigation requested; (Emphasis 

Added). This disclosure shall be made in a writing mailed, or otherwise delivered, to 

the consumer not later than five days after the date on which the request for such 

disclosure was received from the consumer or such report was first requested, 

whichever is the later. 

Defendant did not comply with Section 1681 d(a)(1 ). 

Section 1681 g( c) further provides summary of rights to obtain and dispute 

infonnation in consumer reports and to obtain credit scores as: 

(A) Commission summary of rights required 

The Commission shall prepare a model summary of the rights of consumers under this 

subchapter. 

(B) Content of summary 

The summary of rights prepared under subparagraph (A) shall include a description of-

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Chism v. PepsiCo, Inc. 

the right of a consumer to obtain a copy of a consumer 

report under subsection (a) of this section from each consumer 

reporting agency; 

the frequency and circumstances under which a 

consumer is entitled to receive a consumer report without 

charge under section 1681j of this title; 

the right of a consumer to dispute information in the file 

of the consumer under section 1681 i of this title; 

the right of a consumer to obtain a credit score from a 

consumer reporting agency, and a description of how to obtain a 

credit score; 

the method by which a consumer can contact, and 

obtain a consumer report from , a consumer reporting agency 

without charge, as provided in the regulations of the Bureau 

prescribed under section 2 ll(c) of the Fair and Accurate Credit 

Transactions Act of 2003; and 

the method by which a consumer can contact, and obtain 

a consumer report from, a consumer reporting agency described in 

section 1681 a(w) of this title, as provided in the regulations of the 

Bureau prescribed under section 1681j(a)(l)(C) of this title; 

(Emphasis Added). 

Class Action Complaint 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 9 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

1 5 

16 

1 7 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

44. Defendant did not comply with 168lg(c)(J)(B)(ii) because the summary of rights 

did not include the right of a consumer to obtain a copy of a consumer report under section 

1681 j of this title. 

45. Defendant did not comply with 168Jg(c)(1)(B)(ii) because the summary of rights 

did not include the frequency and circumstances under which a consumer is entitled to receive a 

consumer report without charge under section 168lj of this title. 

46. Defendant did not comply with 1681g(c)(l)(B)(iii) because the summary of 

rights did not include the right of the consumer to dispute information in the file of the 

consumer under section 1681 i of this title. 

47. Defendant did not comply with 1681 g( c)(l )(B)(iv) because the summary of 

rights did not include the right of the consumer to obtain a credit score from a consumer 

reporting agency, and a description of how to obtain a credit score. 

48. Defendant did not comply with 1681g(c)(l)(B)(v) because the summary ofrights 

did not include the method by which a consumer can contact, and obtain a consumer report 

from, a consumer reporting agency without charge, as provided in the regulations of the Bureau 

prescribed under section 211(c) of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of2003 

49. Defendant did not comply with 168Ig(c)(l)(B)(vi) because the summary of 

rights did not include the method by which a consumer can contact, and obtain a consumer 

report from, a consumer reporting agency described in section 1681 a(w) of this title, as 

provided in the regulations ofthe Bureau prescribed under section 1681j(a)(l)(C) ofthis title. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

FAILURE TO MAKE PROPER DISCLOSURE IN VIOLATION OF ICRAA 

(Cal. Civ. Code§ 1786 et seq.) 

(By Plaintiff and the ICRAA Class against all Defendants) 

50. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully alleged herein. 

51. Defendants are "persons" as defined by Section 1786.2(a) of the Investigative 

Consumer Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRAA"). 

52. Plaintiff and ICRAA Class members are ·'consumers" within the meaning 

Section 1786.2(b) of the ICRAA, because they are '·individuals." 

53. Section 1786.2(c) of the ICRAA defines ·'investigative consumer report" as: 

Chism v. PepsiCo, Inc. Class Action Complaint 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 10 of 16
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 

a consumer report in which information on a consumer's character, 

general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained 

through any means. 

54. Thus a background checks qualifies as an investigative consumer 

report under the ICRAA 

55. Section 1786.16(a)(2) of the ICRAA provides, in relevant part: 

If, at any time, an investigative consumer report is sought for employment 

purposes ... the person seeking the investigative consumer report may procure the 

repor1, or cause the report to be made, only if all of the following apply: 

(B) The person procuring or causing the report to be made provides a clear and 

conspicuous disclosure in writing to the consumer at any time before the report is 

procured or caused to be made in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that: 

(i) An investigative consumer report may be obtained. 

(ii) The permissible purpose of the report is identified. 

(iii) The disclosure may include infonnation on the consumer's character, 

general reputation, personal characteristics, and mode ofliving. 

(iv) Identifies the name, address, and telephone number of the investigative 

consumer reporting agency conducting the investigation. 

(v) Notifies the consumer in writing of the nature and scope of the investigation 

requested, including the provisions of Section 1786.22. 

(vi) Notifies the consumer of the Internet Web site address of the iuvestigative 

consumer reporting agency identified in clause (iv), or, if the agency has no 

Internet Web site address, the telephone number of the agency, where the 

consumer may find information about the investigative reporting agency's privacy 

practices, including whether the consumer's personal information will be sent 

outside the United States or its territories and information that complies with 

subdivision (d) of Section 1786.20. This clause shall become operative on Januar 

I, 2012. 

(C) The consumer has authorized in writing the procurement of the report. (Emphasis 

added.) 

56. As described above, Plaintiff alleges that in evaluating him and other class 

members for employment, Defendants procured or caused to be prepared investigative 

consumer report (e.g. background checks), as defined by Cal. Civ. Code§ 1786.2(c). 

57. When Plaintiff applied for employment with Defendants, Defendants did not 

provide Plaintiffwith required Disclosures and Authorizations ("Disclosure"). 

58. Instead, Defendants only provided a Notice ("Notice") which states in pertinent 

part: 

Chism v. PepsiCo, Inc. Class Actio n Complaint 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 11 of 16
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 

IMPORTANT NOTICE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW 

First Advantage does not guarantee the accuracy or truthfulness of the information as the 

subject of the investigation, but only that it is accurately copied from public records. 

lnfonnation generated as a result of identity theft, including evidence of criminal 

activity, may be inaccurately associated with the consumer who is the subject of this 

report. In California, First Advantage shall provide a consumer seeking to obtain a copy 

of a report or making a request to review a file, a written notice in simple, plain English 

and Spanish setting forth the terms and conditions of his or her right to receive all 

disclosures. 

59. Here, there is no disclosure stating that an investigative consumer report will be 

procured for employment purposes. 

60. Moreover, the consumer has not authorized in writing the procurement of the 

report. Here, Plaintiffhas not signed any authorization. 

61. Because Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with any Disclosures or 

Authorizations, they do not meet the requirements under the law. 

62. By including extraneous information, Defendants willfully violated § 

1786.16(a)(2)(B) of the ICRAA. Additionally, the inclusion ofthe extraneous provisions causes 

the disclosure to fail to be "clear and conspicuous" and thus violates § 1786.1 6(a)(2)(B). 

63. Based upon facts that are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable 

opportunity for investigation and discovery, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have a policy and 

practice of failing to provide adequate written disclosures to applicants and employees, before 

procuring background checks or causing background checks to be procured, as described above. 

Pursuant to that policy and practice, Defendants procured background checks or caused 

background checks to be procured for Plaintiff and class members without first providing a 

written disclosure in compli ance with § 1786.16( a)(2)(B) of the ICRAA, as described above. 

64. Defendants' conduct in violation of§ 1786.16(a)(2)(B) of the ICRAA was and is 

willful and/or grossly negligent. Defendants acted in deliberate or reckless disregard of their 

obligations and the rights of applicants and employees, including Plaintiff and class members. 

Defendants' willful conduct is reflected by, among other things, the following facts: 

(e) 

(f) 

Defendants are large corporations with access to legal advice; 

Defendants required a purported authorization to perform credit and 

background checks in the process of employing the class members which, although defective, 

Chism v. PepsiCo, Inc. Class Action Complaint 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 12 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

evidences Defendants' awareness of and willful failure to follow the governing laws concerning 

such authorizations; and 

(g) The plain language of the statute unambiguously indicates that inclusion 

of a liability release and other extraneous infonnation in a disclosure form violates the 

disclosure and authorization requirements, and that the disclosure form must contain the name, 

address, phone number, and/or website address of the investigative consumer reporting agency 

conducting the investigation. 

65. As a result of Defendants' illegal procurement of background reports by way of 

their inadequate disclosures, as set forth above, Plaintiff and class members have been injured 

including, but not limited to, having their privacy and statutory rights invaded in violation of the 

ICRAA. 

66. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all class members, seeks all available remedies 

1 2 pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1786.50, including statutory damages and/or actual damages, 

13 punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

1 9 

20 

21 

22 

67. In the alternative to Plaintiff's allegation that these violations were willful or 

grossly negligent, Plaintiff alleges that the violations were negligent and seeks the appropriate 

remedy, if any, under Cal. Civ. Code§ 1786.50(a), including actual damages and attorneys' fees 

and costs. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

FAILURE TO MAKE PROPER DISCLOSURE IN VIOLATION OF CCRAA 

(Cal. Civ. Code § 1785 et seq.) 

68. 

69. 

(By Plaintiff and the CCRAA Class against all Defendants) 

Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully alleged herein. 

Defendants are "persons" as defined by Section 1785.3(j) of the Consumer 

23 Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA"). 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

70. Plaintiff and CCRAA Class members are "consumers" within the meanmg 

Section 1785.3(b) of the CCRAA, because they are "natural individuals." 

71. Section 1785.3(c) of the ICRAA defines "consumer credit report" as: 

any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer 

credit reporting agency bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit 

standing, or credit capacity, which is used or is expected to be used, or collected 

Chism 1·. PepsiCo, Inc. Class Action Complaint 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 13 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

1 4 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

in whole or in part, for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the 

consumer's eligibility for: ... (2) employment purposes ... 

72. 

theCCRAA. 

73. 

Thus a credit report qualifies as a conswner credit report under 

Section l785.20.5(a) of the CCRAA provides, in relevant part: 

Prior to requesting a consumer credit report for employment purposes, the user of 

the report shall provide written notice to the person involved. The notice shall 

infonn the person that a report will be used, and shall idelttify the specific basis 

under subdivision (a) of Section 1024.5 ofthe Labor Code for use ofthe report. 

The notice shall also inform the person of the source of the report ... 

(Emphasis added.) 

74. As described above, Plaintiff alleges that in evaluating him and other class 

members for employment, Defendants procured or caused to be prepared consumer credit 

reports (e.g. credit reports), as defined by Cal. Civ. Code§ l785.3(c). 

75. When Plaintiff applied for employment with Defendants, Defendants did not 

provide Plaintiff with required Disclosures and Authorizations ("Disclosure"). 

part: 

76. Instead, Defendants only provided a Notice ("Notice") which states in pertinent 

IMPORTANT NOTICE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW 

First Advantage does not guarantee the accuracy or truthfulness of the information as the 

subject of the investigation, but only that it is accurately copied from public records. 

Infonnation generated as a result of identity theft, including evidence of criminal 

activity, may be inaccurately associated with the consumer who is the subject of this 

report. In California, First Advantage shall provide a consumer seeking to obtain a copy 

of a report or making a request to review a file, a written notice in simple, plain English 

and Spanish setting forth the terms and conditions of his or her right to receive all 

disclosures. 

77. The Authorization does not identify the specific basis under subdivision (a) of 

Section 1024.5 of the Labor Code for use of the credit report. Nor does the Authorization 

identify the source of any credit report. Both of these omissions Authorization clearly violate § 

1785.20.5(a) ofthe CCRAA, as delineated above. 

78. Based upon facts that are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable 

opportunity for investigation and discovery, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have a policy and 

practice of failing to provide adequate written disclosures to applicants and employees, before 

Chism v. PepsiCo, Inc. Class Action Complaint 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 14 of 16
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 

procuring credit reports or causing credit reports to be procured, as described above. Pursuant 

to that policy and practice, Defendants procured credit reports or caused credit reports to be 

procured for Plaintiff and class members without first providing a written notice in compliance 

with§ 1785.20.5(a) of the CCRAA, as described above. 

79. Defendants' conduct in violation of § 1785.20.5(a) of the CCRAA was and is 

willful and/or grossly negligent. Defendants acted in deliberate or reckless disregard of their 

obligations and the rights of applicants and employees, including Plaintiff and class members. 

Defendants' willful conduct is reflected by, among other things, the following facts: 

(h) Defendants are large corporations with access to legal advice; 

(i) Defendants required a purported authorization to perform credit checks in 

the process of employing the class members which, although defective, evidences Defendants' 

awareness of and willful failure to follow the governing laws concerning such authorizations; 

and 

(j) The plain language of the statute unambiguously indicates that failure to 

include the provisions identified above violates the CCRAA's notice requirements, and that the 

notice must identify the specific basis under subdivision (a) of Section 1024.5 of the Labor 

Code for use of the credit report and must identify the source of any credit report. 

80. As a result of Defendants' illegal procurement of credit reports by way of their 

inadequate notice, as set forth above, Plaintiff and class members have been injured including, 

but not limited to, having their privacy and statutory rights invaded in violation of the CCRAA. 

81. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all class members, seeks all available remedies 

pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.31 , including statutory damages and/or actual damages, 

punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. 

82. In the alternative to Plaintiffs allegation that these violations were willful, 

Plaintiff alleges that the violations were negligent and seeks the appropriate remedy, if any, 

under Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.31 (a)( I), including but not limited to actual damages and 

attorneys' fees and costs. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, prays for 

relief and judgment against Defendants as follows: 

A. An order that the action be certified as a class action; 

Chism v. PepsiCo, Inc. Class Action Complaint 

Case 3:17-cv-00152-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/12/17 Page 15 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

1 4 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

B. An order that Plaintiff be appointed class representative; 

C. An order that counsel for Plaintiff be appointed class counsel; 

D. Statutory penalties; 

E. Civil penalties; 

F. Punitive damages; 

G. Injunctive relief; 

H. Costs of suit; 

I. Interest; 

J. Reasonable attorneys' fees; and 

K. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, hereby demands a jury 

trial on all issues so triable. 

Dated: January II , 2017 

Chism v. PepsiCo, Inc. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SETAREH LAW GROUP 

By /s/Shaun Setareh 

SHAUN SETAREH, 

H. SCOTT LEVIANT 

Attorney for Plaintiff, 

MARCUS CHISM 

Class Action Complaint