Dormoy v. HireRight, LLC

Background

Edwin Agustin Dormoy sued Lyft, Uber, and HireRight. He alleged that Lyft and Uber deactivated his driver accounts and that HireRight failed to provide information related to the background report that led to Uber’s deactivation of his account. HireRight is an employment-screening company. Dormoy alleged that HireRight violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act by failing to respond to his request for his consumer file.

HireRight moved to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Dormoy requested permission to conduct discovery about jurisdiction or, alternatively, asked the court to transfer the claims against HireRight to another federal district.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court addressed personal jurisdiction first. Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority over a defendant. The court explained that general jurisdiction allows a defendant to be sued on all claims in a state only when the defendant’s affiliations with that state are so substantial that the defendant is essentially at home there.

HireRight is organized under Delaware law, and the court found that its current headquarters and principal place of business were in Nashville, Tennessee. HireRight had employees in California and maintained some office space in Newport Beach, but its Irvine office had closed in March 2023. The court also found that the relevant operations and employees—including the team responsible for receiving and fulfilling file-disclosure requests—were primarily outside California.

The court rejected Dormoy’s argument that HireRight’s former Irvine headquarters, California employees, or registration to do business in California established general jurisdiction. It concluded that Dormoy had not made the required initial showing that HireRight was essentially at home in California.

The court also stated that Dormoy had not challenged HireRight’s argument that specific jurisdiction was lacking. Because he failed to address that issue in his opposition, the court found that he had waived the right to assert specific jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional Discovery

The court denied Dormoy’s request for jurisdictional discovery. It explained that discovery may be appropriate when relevant jurisdictional facts are disputed or more facts are needed, but that a court need not permit discovery when the request is based on unsupported allegations and the plaintiff does not explain what discovery would show.

The court found that HireRight had submitted concrete evidence contradicting Dormoy’s unsupported jurisdictional allegations. Dormoy submitted no evidence, proposed no specific discovery, and did not explain how discovery could establish jurisdiction.

Severance and Transfer

Although the court found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over HireRight, it did not dismiss the claims against that defendant. Instead, it severed those claims and transferred them to the Middle District of Tennessee. The court relied on the fact that HireRight did not oppose severance and transfer, Lyft also did not oppose them at the hearing, and the claims against HireRight were separate from Dormoy’s claims against the other defendants.

Disposition

The court denied Dormoy’s request for jurisdictional discovery, found that general personal jurisdiction over HireRight was lacking, severed Dormoy’s claims against HireRight, and transferred those claims to the Middle District of Tennessee. The court did not address HireRight’s argument that the complaint failed to state a claim. The order disposed of Docket No. 20.