Fifer v. ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc.

Background

The opinion describes a putative class action asserting one claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The plaintiff alleged that ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc. provided a background report to an employer without first obtaining the employer’s certification that it had disclosed the investigation to the applicant and received the applicant’s authorization, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(1).

The lawsuit was filed in California state court and removed by ADP to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction. The plaintiff moved to remand, meaning to send the case back to state court. ADP separately moved to transfer the case to the District of Colorado.

Order of the Motions

The court held that it had to decide the motion to remand before considering the motion to transfer. It explained that courts generally resolve whether federal jurisdiction exists before deciding whether another federal court is a more appropriate venue. The court found that ADP had not shown a sufficient reason to depart from that usual sequence.

Standing and Remand

The plaintiff argued that the complaint did not allege a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing, which is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury allowing a federal court to hear the case. The court agreed. It found that the complaint alleged only a procedural violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and did not allege that the background report was inaccurate or substantively improper. It also did not allege that the employer failed to provide the required disclosure or obtain authorization from the plaintiff.

Because the complaint did not allege concrete harm, the court concluded that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing and that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court therefore granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The court did not decide whether ADP ultimately violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Transfer Motion and Disposition

After granting the motion to remand, the court denied ADP’s motion to transfer as moot. The final order was: the plaintiff’s motion to remand was granted, and ADP’s motion to transfer was denied as moot.

The caption identifies the plaintiffs as “DESTINY FIFER, et al.,” while the body of the opinion refers to the plaintiff as “Dominique Newman.” The opinion does not explain this discrepancy.