United States District Court, D. Idaho
GLORIA MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
WINCO FOODS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
LYNN WINMILL, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
the Court is Winco Foods LLC's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 49. For the
reasons set forth herein, the Court will GRANT IN PART and
DENY IN PART Winco's Motion.
Court previously dismissed Plaintiff Gloria Mitchell's
First Amended Complaint after concluding that Mitchell failed
to adequately allege “concrete injury, ” thereby
denying this Court jurisdiction under Article III of the
Constitution. Dkt. 28. The United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court's decision with
respect to the Article III inquiry but ordered the Court to
provide Mitchell the opportunity to amend her complaint. Dkt.
42. Mitchell subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint.
Dkt. 46. Apparently satisfied that the Second Amended
Complaint adequately alleged facts establishing that Mitchell
has standing to pursue her claims, WINCO has filed this
motion to dismiss - alleging other grounds why the complaint
should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, ” in order to “give the
defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While a complaint
attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss “does not
need detailed factual allegations, ” it must set forth
“more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
Supreme Court identified two “working principles”
that underlie Twombly in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). First, the court need not accept
legal conclusions that are couched as factual allegations as
true; the trial court “can choose to begin by
identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of
truth.” Id. Rule 8 does not “unlock the
doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more
than conclusions.” Id. at 678-79. Second, to
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must state a
plausible claim for relief. Id. at 679.
“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible
claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act's Statutory Scheme
Fair Credit Reporting Act provides an intricate set of
requirements for employers who seek to obtain information
about their potential employees. To begin with, the FCRA
contains a clear distinction between “consumer
reports” and “investigative consumer
reports.” The FCRA defines “consumer
any written, 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.
15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d)(1). The FCRA defines
“investigative consumer reports” 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 reported on or with others with whom he is
acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such
items of information. However, such information shall not
include specific factual information on a consumer's
credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the
consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such
information was obtained directly from a creditor of the
consumer or from the consumer.
15 U.S.C. § 1681a(e).
distinction between consumer reports and investigative
consumer reports is important when considered within the
context of the disclosures required under the FCRA. Section
a person may not procure a consumer report, or cause
a consumer report to be procured, for employment purposes
with respect to any consumer, unless-(i) a 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