Slade v. Empire Today, LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:20-cv-09301
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Slade v. Empire Today, Judge Rogers remanded the Fair Credit Reporting Act case for lack of standing and denied arbitration as moot.
Jeul Slade, Empire Today, LLC, and the other defendants; the case was returned to Alameda County Superior Court.
What happened
Slade v. Empire Today, LLC involved a case that Empire Today removed from California state court to federal court based on claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law governing consumer reports.
Jeul Slade alleged that defendants obtained credit and background reports during hiring without proper disclosures or authorization. He claimed violations of privacy and statutory rights but stated that he was not claiming economic or other concrete harm. Slade asked the federal court to send the case back to state court, while Empire Today renewed its request to require arbitration.
The court ruled that Slade had not alleged a concrete injury required for federal court jurisdiction, so it granted the motion to remand and directed that the case return to Alameda County Superior Court. Judge Yvonne Rogers denied the renewed motion to compel arbitration as moot and vacated the hearing.
The detailed version
- Slade v. Empire Today, LLC · No. 4:20-cv-09301
- Yvonne Rogers
- Apr. 22, 2021
Background
Jeul Slade brought claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act against Empire Today and other defendants. Empire Today removed the action from the Superior Court of California for Alameda County to federal court, asserting federal-question jurisdiction based on the FCRA claims.
Slade moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court. Empire Today later filed a renewed motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the action. The court had previously denied an arbitration motion without prejudice and had allowed limited discovery concerning whether Slade agreed to the arbitration provision. The court decided the motions without oral argument.
Issue
The principal issue was whether Slade alleged an injury sufficient to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution. Article III standing requires a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent. The court also considered Empire Today's renewed request to compel arbitration.
Reasoning
Slade's complaint alleged that defendants obtained credit and background reports in connection with hiring without providing legally adequate disclosures or obtaining proper authorization. It alleged that the disclosures were not written as standalone documents and contained extraneous information, and that defendants did not provide required information about requesting additional disclosures and a summary of statutory rights.
The court concluded that these allegations described procedural violations but did not identify a concrete injury beyond those violations. Slade alleged an invasion of privacy and statutory rights, but he disclaimed economic injury and stated in briefing that he asserted no economic or other concrete injury. The court distinguished a Ninth Circuit case in which the allegations included confusion about a liability waiver and an assertion that the plaintiff would not have signed the form had the disclosures been compliant. The court found no comparable allegations of confusion, error, or other harm here.
Ruling
The court granted Slade's motion to remand because the complaint did not establish Article III standing. It directed the Clerk to remand the action to the Superior Court of California for Alameda County.
The court denied Empire Today's renewed motion to compel arbitration as moot. The order terminated Docket Nos. 20 and 21 and vacated the hearing.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.