Weaver v. Checkr Inc.

Background

Victor L. Weaver, appearing without a lawyer, sued Checkr Inc. under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. He alleged that Checkr, a consumer reporting agency, supplied UberEats with an outdated and inaccurate background report that stated charges against him remained pending. Weaver alleged that he was consequently denied an opportunity to work for UberEats.

Weaver had previously filed a nearly identical Fair Credit Reporting Act suit against Checkr in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Checkr moved in that case to require arbitration. Weaver received notice of the motion but did not file an opposition. Judge Susan M. Brnovich granted the motion and dismissed the Arizona suit on September 12, 2022.

Weaver then pursued the California case. Checkr moved to dismiss it under collateral estoppel, also called issue preclusion. This doctrine can prevent a party from relitigating an issue when the issue was identical in an earlier proceeding, was actually litigated and decided there, was subject to a full and fair opportunity to be litigated, and was necessary to the earlier decision.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the arbitration issue was identical in both cases and necessary to the Arizona decision. Weaver admitted at oral argument that he knew about Checkr’s motion and had the opportunity to oppose it, satisfying the full-and-fair-opportunity requirement.

The court also held that the arbitration issue was actually litigated. Although Weaver did not oppose the motion, Judge Brnovich did not grant it merely because it was unopposed; she decided the arbitration issue on the merits. The court concluded that an issue may be treated as actually litigated when it was raised, submitted for decision, and decided, even if the party who could have opposed it did not do so, based on the circumstances of the proceeding.

Because the California complaint was virtually identical to the Arizona complaint, the court concluded that it had to respect the Arizona judgment and could not allow Weaver to relitigate whether arbitration was required. The court stated that Weaver’s arguments about prejudice and error should be raised on appeal rather than through a collateral challenge in this case.

Disposition

The court granted Checkr’s motion to dismiss. It denied Weaver’s motions to amend because they did not correct the identified deficiencies. It denied as moot Weaver’s motions to compel discovery and motion to reconsider. The case was dismissed without leave to amend, and the clerk was directed to close the file.