Sullivan v. Safeway
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:19-cv-03187
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sullivan v. Safeway, Judge Chesney granted defendants’ dismissal motion, dismissing claims against other defendants and one claim against Safeway while allowing amendment.
Kendra Sullivan and the other plaintiffs lost their claims against all defendants except Safeway Inc., and their Third Cause of Action against Safeway was dismissed. The court allowed them to file an amended complaint by December 3, 2019; remaining claims against Safeway could continue if no amended complaint was filed.
What happened
In Sullivan v. Safeway, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the case for lack of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs had not shown that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over any defendant except Safeway Inc. The court also dismissed the Third Cause of Action against Safeway, finding that the reports involved did not contain information about the plaintiffs’ creditworthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity. The court gave the plaintiffs until December 3, 2019, to file an amended complaint.
Judge Elaine M. Chesney granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The complaint was dismissed in its entirety as to the defendants other than Safeway, and the Third Cause of Action was dismissed as to Safeway; the remaining claims against Safeway would continue if no amended complaint was filed.
The detailed version
- Sullivan v. Safeway · No. 3:19-cv-03187
- Maxine Chesney
- Nov. 8, 2019
Background
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim for relief. The motion was filed August 23, 2019. The plaintiffs did not file an opposition. The court had previously denied the plaintiffs’ request for more time to oppose the motion.
Personal jurisdiction
The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to allege or otherwise show facts supporting personal jurisdiction over any defendant other than Safeway Inc. Specifically, the plaintiffs did not provide facts showing that the other defendants were incorporated, headquartered, or otherwise “at home” in California, or that the action arose from those defendants’ contacts with California.
Third Cause of Action
The Third Cause of Action alleged a violation of California Civil Code § 1785.20.5(a). The court held that the claim was subject to dismissal because the plaintiffs had not shown that the reports on which they relied contained information bearing on their creditworthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity, as required under California Civil Code § 1785.3(c).
Disposition
The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed the complaint in its entirety as to all defendants other than Safeway and dismissed the Third Cause of Action as to Safeway. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by December 3, 2019. If no amended complaint was filed, the action would proceed on the remaining claims against Safeway. The court did not address the defendants’ additional argument that the plaintiffs lacked constitutional standing as to the other defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.