Feist
Feist v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Huff, J.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiffs Jacklyn Feist and Angelica Zimmer filed this putative class action on May 5, 2016 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. (Doc. No. 1-2.) Defendant Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. removed the action to this Court on June 6, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on June 13, 2016, and Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on July 1, 2016. (Doc. Nos. 4, 6.) On July 15, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition on August 29, 2016. (Doc. No. 11.) Defendant filed a reply on November 14, 2016. (Doc. No. 14.) Also on November 14, 2016, pursuant to its discretion under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court vacated the hearing and submitted the motion on the parties’ papers. (Doc. No. 15.)
For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Background
Plaintiffs each completed an application for employment with Defendant. (Doc. No. 6 at 8-9, ¶¶ 30, 34.) The application consisted of a series of forms, and one of those forms contained a background cheek consent form (“Consent Form”). (Id. at 9, ¶ 37.) The…