Cunha

Cunha v. IntelliCheck, LLC

Caution

254 F. Supp. 3d 1124·2017 WL 2311316·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81528

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 26, 2017Case No.17-cv-00597-JSTCalifornia7,824 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tigar, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR STRIKE

Re: ECF Nos. 24,

Defendants Chico Produce, Inc. d/b/a/ Pro Pacific Fresh, Inc. (“ProPacific”) and IntelliCheck, LLC (“IntelliCheck”) move to. dismiss or strike portions of Plaintiff James Cunha’s first amended complaint (“FAC”). ECF Nos. 24, 40. The Court will grant the motions in part and deny them in part.

I. BACKGROUND

This putative class action arises out of an employment background check that In-telliCheck performed on Cunha when he applied to be a produce delivery driver for ProPacific on April 30, 2016. FAC, ECF No. 21 ¶ 8. On his first day of employment, Cunha was required to sign a number of forms, including a “Disclosure and Authorization for Consumer Reports” form (“Disclosure Form”). Id ¶¶ 8, 10. After Cunha signed the Disclosure Form, IntelliCheck prepared a consumer report on Cunha that included information about misdemeanor convictions that occurred more than seven years prior to the date of the consumer report and information about arrests that did not result in a conviction. Id. ¶ 15. As a result of the information contained in the consumer report, ProPacific terminated Cunha on May 20,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.