Soman v. Alameda Health System
- James Donato
- 3:17-cv-06076
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Soman v. Alameda Health System, Judge Donato reopened the case, vacated the dismissal, and denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the Fair Credit Reporting Act claim.
JAS Soman’s FCRA lawsuit against Alameda Health System was restored to active status; Alameda Health System’s motion to dismiss was denied.
What happened
In JAS SOMAN v. ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, the court reconsidered its earlier dismissal after a later Ninth Circuit decision addressed similar Fair Credit Reporting Act practices. The Ninth Circuit had sent the case back for that reconsideration.
The court granted reconsideration and ruled that Soman’s second amended complaint stated a plausible claim. It vacated the orders dismissing the complaint and entering judgment against Soman, denied Alameda Health System’s motion to dismiss, and restored the case to active status.
Judge James Donato set a scheduling conference for January 9, 2020. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of Soman’s claim.
The detailed version
- Soman v. Alameda Health System · No. 3:17-cv-06076
- James Donato
- Oct. 18, 2019
Background
The court had previously dismissed JAS Soman’s second amended complaint and entered judgment against her. After that dismissal, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC. The court stated that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) practices found impermissible in Gilberg were substantively identical to the practices Soman challenged.
The court had advised the parties and the Ninth Circuit that it would view a motion for reconsideration favorably. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case on that basis.
Ruling
The court granted reconsideration. It concluded that Gilberg established that Soman’s second amended complaint stated a plausible FCRA claim. The court vacated its earlier orders dismissing the second amended complaint and entering judgment against Soman.
The court denied Alameda Health System’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. It restored the case to active status and set a scheduling conference for January 9, 2020. The order did not resolve whether Soman would ultimately prevail on the FCRA claim.
Effect
The case continued rather than remaining dismissed. The order addressed whether the complaint could proceed past the dismissal stage, not the final merits of the claim.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.