United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the court is Defendants Vertical Screen, Inc., and
Truescreen, Inc.'s (collectively,
“Defendants”) motion to dismiss pro se
Plaintiff Tom Chen's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (MTD (Dkt. # 7).) The court has
considered the parties' submissions, the relevant
portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully
advised,  the court grants Defendants' motion
for the reasons set forth below.
Chen filed a complaint against Defendants in King County
Superior Court on May 30, 2017, alleging violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681 et seq., and Washington's Criminal
Records Privacy Act (“CRPA”), RCW ch. 10.97.
(See Compl. (Dkt. # 1-1) at 4-5.) On June 19, 2017,
Defendants removed the case to this court based on diversity
and supplemental jurisdiction. (See Not. of Removal
(Dkt. # 1) at 2); 28 U.S.C. § 1331; id. §
are consumer reporting agencies that assemble information on
consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to
third parties. (See MTD at 2); 15 U.S.C. §
1681a. Mr. Chen alleges that his employer obtained a
background report on him from Defendants on May 18, 2017.
(See Compl. at 2.) The report stated that Mr. Chen
was subject to two misdemeanor criminal charges that had been
dismissed on May 27, 2011. (Id.) The results of
Defendants' report allegedly prevented Mr. Chen from
obtaining security credentials required to work on a specific
project, and as a result, his employer terminated his
employment. (See Id. at 3.) Mr. Chen alleges that
Defendants' staff “refused to delete the criminal
record” when he contacted them on May 23, 2017.
Mr. Chen filed his complaint, he obtained, in a separate
state court proceeding, an order expunging the case records
for the dismissed charges that Defendants reported.
(See Resp. at 3, Ex. U (“Pierce Cty. Dist. Ct.
Order”).) The order directs state, county, and local
“government agencies, federal or national background
reporting companies (including but not limited to Truescreen,
Inc.), [and] credit bureaus” to “expunge related
records in their possession or control.” (See
Pierce Cty. Dist. Ct. Order at 1.)
26, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Chen's
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). (See MTD at 1.) Defendants' motion is
now before the court.
12(b)(6) provides for dismissal of a complaint for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). While “detailed
factual allegations” are not required, a complaint must
include “more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In
other words, a complaint must have sufficient factual
allegations to “state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A
claim is facially plausible “when the pleaded factual
content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. Under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissal
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).
considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the
court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party. Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith
Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2005). The
court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Wyler
Summit P'ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 135 F.3d
658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998). The court also liberally construes
a complaint filed by a pro se litigant like Mr.
Chen. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(“A document filed pro se is to be liberally
construed, and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). However,
“pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case
should not be treated more favorably than parties with
attorneys of record, ” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790
F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.1986), and the court cannot supply
essential facts that the pro se plaintiff has failed
to plead, Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
construed, Mr. Chen's complaint alleges that: (1)
Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), the provision
of the FCRA that requires a consumer reporting agency
(“CRA”) to follow reasonable procedures to
“assure maximum possible accuracy” of the
information in a report, and (2) Defendants violated RCW
10.97.060, a provision of the CRPA that requires criminal
justice agencies (“CJAs”) to delete certain
nonconviction data upon request if two years have elapsed
since the entry of a disposition favorable to the defendant.
(See Compl. at 4; Resp. (Dkt. # 9) at 3.) Defendants
argue that Mr. Chen's complaint fails ...