Kristi Del Toro v. Centene Corporation

Background

Kristi Del Toro filed a putative class action against Centene Corporation, Envolve Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., and US Script, LLC. She alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and various California wage-and-hour laws. This order addressed only the FCRA claim against Centene and Envolve.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed the FCRA claim for lack of constitutional standing but allowed amendment. It also dismissed one state-law claim with prejudice and dismissed six other state-law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction, while allowing amendment. Del Toro later reasserted the claims under a different jurisdictional theory. The defendants’ current motion challenged only the FCRA claim.

Documents Considered

The defendants asked the court to consider three documents referenced in and forming the basis of the complaint: Del Toro’s job application, her background-check authorization and disclosure form, and her consumer report. The court held that it could incorporate those documents by reference when deciding the motion to dismiss because the complaint extensively discussed them and relied on them.

The job application and background-check form were signed on May 1, 2008. The defendants’ evidence showed that they obtained Del Toro’s consumer report on or before May 27, 2008. The court stated that an FCRA disclosure claim is completed when the consumer report is obtained.

Statute of Limitations

The FCRA requires an action to be filed by the earlier of two years after the plaintiff discovers the violation or five years after the violation occurs. The court applied the five-year period because the alleged violation occurred when the defendants obtained the consumer report. Del Toro filed her original complaint on August 19, 2019, more than eleven years after the report was obtained. The court therefore held that her FCRA claim was time-barred.

Leave to Amend

The court considered whether Del Toro should be allowed to amend the FCRA claim again. It concluded that amendment would be futile because the report was obtained more than six years before the limitations period expired, Del Toro had already been alerted to the timeliness problem, and her amended complaint still did not allege a timely procurement. The court also stated that requiring the defendants to file another motion would cause undue delay and prejudice.

Order

The court GRANTED the defendants’ motion to dismiss Del Toro’s FCRA claim with prejudice. The order stated that the defendants’ motion did not seek dismissal of the state-law claims and that the case should proceed on those claims.

The court also ordered Del Toro, by October 23, 2020, to file either proof that she had served US Script, LLC or materials establishing good cause for a short extension of time to complete service. If she failed to do either, the court stated that it would dismiss US Script without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).