Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Haley v. TalentWise, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington

April 2, 2014

HEATHER HALEY, Plaintiff,
v.
TALENTWISE, INC., Defendant

Page 1189

For Heather Haley, as an individual and as a representative of the classes, Plaintiff: Anna P Prakash, Daniel C Bryden, E. Michelle Drake, Nicholas D Thompson, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, MINNEAPOLIS, MN; Erika L. Nusser, LEAD ATTORNEY, Beth E Terrell, TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC, SEATTLE, WA.

For Talentwise, Inc., formerly known as Talentwise Solutions LLC, formerly known as Intelius Screening Solutions LLC, Defendant: Arthur W. Harrigan, Jr., Damon Clay Elder, Tyler Lawrence Farmer, CALFO HARRIGAN LEYH & EAKES, LLP, SEATTLE, WA.

Page 1190

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Marsha J. Pechman, United States District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant TalentWise, Inc.'s (" TalentWise" ) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Heather Haley's (" Haley" ) suit. The Court considered the complaint (Dkt. No. 22), the motion (Dkt. No. 24), the response (Dkt. No. 30), the reply (Dkt. No. 32), and all attached documents. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART TalentWise's Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismisses Haley's negligence claims, but the remaining claims survive the Motion to Dismiss because they are facially plausible. Further, the Court will not determine class definitions on this Motion. The Court also DENIES Haley leave to file a second amended complaint.

Background

Haley brought suit against TalentWise, a consumer reporting agency, alleging it violated three provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1681, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (" FCRA" ), by reporting outdated and dismissed charges; reporting inaccurate, misleading, and internally inconsistent information; and failing to maintain strict procedures.

Haley began working for La Quinta Inns & Suites (" La Quinta" ) in 2005. (Dkt. No. 22 at 6.) In early 2013, she was considered for promotion to assistant manager, and La Quinta obtained a consumer report on Haley from TalentWise. (Id.)

Haley alleges the consumer report La Quinta received from TalentWise was inaccurate and misleading, violating the FCRA. (Dkt. No. 22 at 7.) She claims TalentWise listed a dismissed robbery charge that was over seven years old. (Id.) She also maintains TalentWise listed her refusal to submit to a breathalyzer charge twice on the report but listed the charge as having two different dispositions (Id.); one part of the report shows the charge was dismissed, while another part shows the charge resulted in a conviction. (Dkt. No. 22-10 at 5-6.) Public records indicate the refusal to submit to a breathalyzer charge was dismissed. (Dkt. No. 25-1 at 12.)

Page 1191

La Quinta fired Haley after it received the consumer report, but she requested reinstatement. (Dkt. No. 22 at 7.) Haley alleges La Quinta sent her an e-mail stating it would not rehire her partly because La Quinta believed she was convicted of refusing to take a breathalyzer test. (Id.) Haley then requested TalentWise to send her a copy of the consumer report it had sent to La Quinta. (Id.) The report Haley received removed the dismissed robbery charge but did not alter either of the charges of refusing to submit to a breathalyzer. (Id. at 8.)

TalentWise moves to dismiss Haley's First Amended Complaint, alleging Haley fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. TalentWise also moves to strike Haley's class definition. (Dkt. No. 24.) Haley asks the Court in her response for leave to file a second amended complaint to delete the negligence claims and amend the class definition at issue. (Dkt. No. 30.)

Analysis

A. Legal Standard for a 12(b)(6) Motion

To survive a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A claim is facially plausible " when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. Plausibility does not mean probability, " but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. Merely reciting the elements of a cause of action will not suffice. Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

Courts follow a two-pronged approach when deciding whether a complaint survives a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. First, " a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint" unless the allegations are legal conclusions. Id. Second, the claim for relief must be plausible, which is a context-specific task. Id. Courts can consider " documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice" when making their determination. U.S. v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).

B. A Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a)(2) and (5) is Plausible as the Report Included a Dismissed Charge From ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.