Wittbecker v. Cupertino Electric

Background

Roy Wittbecker brought a proposed class action against Cupertino Electric, Inc. and Does 1 through 50 in California state court. He alleged that Cupertino Electric obtained consumer, investigative consumer, or credit reports for employment background checks without the disclosures and authorization required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In particular, he alleged that the disclosure form included extra information, including state-specific disclosures and a liability release, instead of consisting only of the required disclosure.

The complaint asserted nine causes of action: one FCRA claim and eight California-law claims involving meals, rest periods, hourly wages, vacation wages, expense reimbursement, wage statements, final pay, and unfair competition. Wittbecker sought statutory and actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Cupertino Electric removed the case to federal court under federal-question jurisdiction because the complaint included the FCRA claim. Wittbecker moved to remand, arguing that he lacked Article III standing—the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury connected to the defendant’s conduct and likely to be remedied by a court decision.

Standing analysis

The court held that Wittbecker did not allege a concrete injury for purposes of the FCRA claim. It rejected Cupertino Electric’s argument that general references to actual damages, lost money or property, and restitution automatically established an injury. The court described those allegations as insufficient and noted that Wittbecker clarified that the lost-money and restitution allegations concerned the California wage-and-hour claims.

The court also rejected the argument that Wittbecker alleged a sufficient informational injury. Although he alleged that the disclosure included a liability waiver and other extra information, he did not specifically allege what concrete harm resulted. He did not allege that he was confused by the disclosure, that he would not have signed the authorization without the extra language, that he was unaware he was authorizing a background check or releasing liability, that he was denied employment, or that the report was inaccurate. The complaint instead alleged that he was hired.

The court characterized the allegations as a bare technical violation of the FCRA’s disclosure requirements, without real harm or a risk of real harm. It therefore concluded that Wittbecker lacked Article III standing to assert the FCRA claim in federal court.

State-law claims and disposition

The court explained that it could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the eight state-law claims only if they formed part of the same constitutional case or controversy as a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction. Because the FCRA claim did not establish federal jurisdiction, and because Cupertino Electric had not asserted an independent basis for jurisdiction over the state-law claims, the court concluded that it could not—and in any event would not, in its discretion—exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand at ECF 19 and ordered the Clerk to remand the action to the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County. The order resolved the jurisdiction and remand issue; it did not decide the merits of the FCRA or California-law claims.