Laccinole

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LACCINOLE, Case No. 24-cv-07764-VC

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING LOPEZ'S v. MOTIONS TO TRANSFER, DISMISS,

AND STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS

WAYNE M LOPEZ,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 22, 23, 24 Defendant.

Lopez’s motion to transfer, motion to dismiss, and motion to strike class allegations are all denied. This order assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts, governing legal standards, and arguments made by the parties. 1. Motion to Transfer. Lopez has not shown that transfer would be more convenient and better serve the interests of justice. Lopez is based in California, as are all his business records, which are central to adjudicating whether Lopez had a permissible purpose in requesting the consumer report. See, e.g., Johnson v. Experian, No. SACV 12-230, 2012 WL 5292955 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2012). 2. Motion to Dismiss. Lopez argues that the complaint fails to allege that he willfully failed to comply with the FCRA. Willfulness includes both knowing and reckless violations. See Safeco Insurance Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 56–57 (2007). Laccinole has alleged enough to infer…