United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
Honorable Richard A. Jones, United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Starbucks
Corporation's (“Starbucks” or
“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 19.
Plaintiff Jonathan Santiago Rosario opposes the Motion. Dkt.
# 24. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
DENIES Defendant's Motion.
following is taken from Plaintiff's Complaint, which is
assumed to be true for the purposes of this motion to
dismiss. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th
brings this putative class action against Defendant for
alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3) (“FCRA”). Dkt. # 1
¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the FCRA
by taking adverse employment action against him before
providing him with a copy of his background report and a
summary of his rights as an applicant. Id.
Starbucks Corporation is a coffee roaster and retailer based
in Seattle, Washington. In March of 2016, Plaintiff applied
and interviewed for a barista position at a Starbucks
location in Colorado. Dkt. # 1 ¶¶ 10, 11.
Applicants for barista positions at Starbucks must first fill
out an employment application online. Dkt. # 19. After an
applicant is selected, Starbucks makes a conditional offer of
employment. Starbucks then orders a background check on the
applicant through a third-party background screening service,
Accurate Background (“Accurate”). Id.
point between March 29 and April 7, 2016, Starbucks received
Plaintiff's background report from Accurate. This report
included inaccurate criminal record information that has been
attributed to Plaintiff's adoptive brother. Dkt. # 1
¶ 13. The type of criminal record shown on the report
would typically prevent hiring by Starbucks. Dkt. # 19. On or
before April 7, 2016, Starbucks removed Plaintiff from hiring
consideration based on this background report. Dkt. # 1
¶ 16. On or about April 20, 2016, Accurate sent
Plaintiff a letter on behalf of Starbucks, informing him that
his background check did not meet Starbucks requirements and
that he could appeal Starbucks' decision. Id.
¶¶ 18, 19. The letter also states that if
Plaintiff's appeal was successful, his offer of
employment would be reinstituted. Id. On May 17,
2016, Plaintiff called Accurate and disputed the results of
his background check. Plaintiff's background report was
corrected shortly after. Id. ¶¶ 23-24.
Plaintiff's job offer was not reinstituted. Id.
LEGAL STANDARD A. FRCP 12(b)(1)
courts are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and may only
hear cases authorized by the Constitution or a statutory
grant. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The burden of
establishing subject-matter jurisdiction rests upon the party
seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction. Id. Once it
is determined that a federal court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court has no choice but to dismiss the
suit. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514
(2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines
at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the
court must dismiss the action.”).
may bring a factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction,
and in such cases the court may consider materials beyond the
complaint. PW Arms, Inc. v. United States, 186
F.Supp.3d 1137, 1142 (W.D. Wash. 2016) (citing Savage v.
Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n. 2 (9th
Cir. 2003); see also McCarthy v. United States, 850
F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Moreover, when
considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) the
district court is not restricted to the face of the
pleadings, but may review any evidence, such as affidavits
and testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the
existence of jurisdiction.”).
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a claim. The rule requires the court to
assume the truth of the complaint's factual allegations
and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those
allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910
(9th Cir. 2007). A court “need not accept as true
conclusory allegations that are contradicted by documents
referred to in the complaint.” Manzarek v. St. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th
Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations
that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 568 (2007). If the plaintiff succeeds, the complaint
avoids dismissal if there is “any set of facts
consistent with the allegations in the complaint” that
would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Id. at 563;
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
typically cannot consider evidence beyond the four corners of
the complaint, although it may rely on a document to which
the complaint refers if the document is central to the
party's claims and its authenticity is not in question.
Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006).
A court may also consider ...