Rattler
Rattler v. MH Sub I, LLC
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KIM RATTLER, Case No. 20-cv-02444-EMC
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
9 v. MOTION TO STRIKE OR DISMISS
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
10 MH SUB I, LLC, et al., Docket No. 7 11 Defendants.
12 13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Kim Rattler (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Rattler”) has filed a putative class action against MH Sub 16 I, LLC1 and Demandforce, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), alleging violations of the Fair Credit 17 Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. In particular, she alleges that Defendants 18 provide FCRA disclosure notices that are not “clear and conspicuous,” as required by law. 19 Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss or strike a portion of Plaintiff’s class allegations based 20 on FCRA’s statute of limitations. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 A. Factual Background 23 Plaintiff alleges as follows. Plaintiff was an employee of “Defendant” in the state of 24 California. See Complaint ¶ 6, 21,…