United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
LEONARD LUNA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated PLAINTIFF
WAL-MART TRANSPORTATION, LLC, an Arkansas Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court are Defendant Wal-Mart Transportation,
LLC's (hereinafter "Wal-Mart Transportation")
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 41) and Brief in Support (Doc. 42),
Plaintiff Leonard Luna's Brief in Opposition (Doc. 45),
and Wal-Mart Transportation's Reply (Doc. 47).
Court conducted a motion hearing on October 9, 2018. Counsel
for both parties had the opportunity to present oral argument
on the Motion and answer the Court's questions. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Court ruled from the bench and
GRANTED Wal-Mart Transportation's
Motion, dismissing the case WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The following Order memorializes the
Court's findings from the bench and further explains the
reasons for the Court's decision. To the extent anything
in this Order conflicts with statements made from the bench,
this Order will control.
about April 2016, Mr. Luna completed a multi-page online
application for a truck-driving job with Wal-Mart
Transportation. One of the forms authorized Wal-Mart
Transportation to obtain a consumer report on Mr. Luna.
According to Mr. Luna, the authorization form was not a
"stand-alone" authorization; instead the form
contained additional extraneous information. After Mr. Luna
applied for the job online, Wal-Mart Transportation obtained
Mr. Luna's driving record and thereafter denied him
Luna's sole cause of action alleges that Wal-Mart
Transportation violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") by procuring a "consumer report"
on him without first obtaining his authorization through a
"clear and conspicuous disclosure ... in writing ...
in a document that consists solely of the disclosure
that a consumer report may be obtained for employment
purposes." (Doc. 22); 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i)
(emphasis added). Wal-Mart Transportation argues that the
claim should be dismissed because Wal-Mart was not obligated
to provide a stand-alone disclosure to Mr. Luna at the time
he applied online for the truck-driving job. Wal-Mart
Transportation points out that there are exceptions to the
stand-alone disclosure requirement, and Mr. Luna's
application falls under one of those exceptions.
survive a motion to dismiss, a pleading must contain "a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
The purpose of this requirement is to "give the
defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests." Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The court
must accept all of a complaint's factual allegations as
true, and construe them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, drawing all reasonable inferences in the
plaintiffs favor. See Ashley Cnty., Ark. v. Pfizer,
Inc., 552 F.3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2009).
the complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 570). "A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Id. "A
pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or
'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do.' Nor does a complaint suffice if it
tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further
factual enhancement.'" Id. In other words,
while "the pleading standard that Rule 8 announces does
not require 'detailed factual allegations, '... it
demands more than an unadorned, the
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id.
Amended Complaint, Mr. Luna claims Wal-Mart Transportation
failed to comply with the FCRA's stand-alone disclosure
requirement in 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A) before
procuring a consumer report on him that contained "an
incomplete [driver's] safety performance history."
(Doc. 22, ¶¶ 15, 16). He sets forth the factual
basis for his claim as follows:
On or about April 2016, Plaintiff Luna applied for a
truck-driving job with [Wal-Mart Transportation]. As part of
the multiple-page online application process, Defendant
required Plaintiff Luna to complete numerous forms, including
a FCRA authorization. The FCRA authorization form is buried
among multiple documents and other forms and includes various
other extraneous information. Accordingly, the FCRA
authorization form is not presented as a stand-alone
disclosure pursuant to the FCRA.
Id. at ¶ 15.
Motion to Dismiss, Wal-Mart Transportation argues that Mr.
Luna failed to state a valid claim because his online
application for the truck driver position fell within an
exception to the stand-alone disclosure requirement of 15
U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A) ("subsection (A)").
The exception appears at 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(B)
("subsection (B)") and at 15 U.S.C. ...