Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bolton v. First Advantage Lns Screening Solutions, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

July 1, 2015

JAMON BOLTON and CHRISTOPHER STAPLES, on behalfof themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

PAUL A. CROTTY, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Jamon Bolton and Christopher Staples bring this class action against Defendant First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. ("First Advantage"), alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. First Advantage argues Bolton's claims are untimely and moves to partially dismiss the suit under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). First Advantage's motion to dismiss the complaint with respect to Bolton is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On June 23, 2011, Bolton applied for a management position with T.J. Maxx. Am. Compl. ¶ 24. As part of the application process, Bolton truthfully stated that he had not been convicted of a crime within the previous eight years. Id. at ¶ 25. T.J. Maxx conditionally offered Bolton the position and retained First Advantage to conduct a background check. Id. at ¶¶ 27-28.

As part of its background check, First Advantage produced a report of Bolton's criminal history, which contained the following information:

Case Reference # XXXXX-XXXX Case Date 09/24/2002 Name on File JAMON BOLTON DoB on File omitted Charge ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY 3RD DEGREE Charge Type FELONY Disposition GUILTY Sentence PROBATION 5 YEARS

Id. at ¶ 31. Bolton alleges that, based on First Advantage's report, T.J. Maxx erroneously concluded that his conviction date was December 5, 2006 and terminated his offer, pursuant to its policy against hiring employees who have a felony conviction in the eight years preceding their applications. Id. at ¶ 38. But December 5, 2006 - marked only as "Date" in the report- represented the date Bolton's case was closed, not the date of his conviction. Id. at ¶ 14. Bolton's conviction date, March 13, 2003 (more than eight years before he applied to T.J. Maxx), was omitted from the report. Id. at ¶¶ 33-34.

On July 25, 2014, Bolton initiated this class action, alleging both negligent and willful violations of FCRA § 1681e(b). First Advantage moved to dismiss the claims as untimely. On February 23, 2015, while First Advantage's motion to dismiss was pending, Bolton amended the complaint to add Staples as a plaintiff. Staples also alleged violations of FCRA § 168 1e(b) arising from a report First Advantage furnished to his prospective employer, Home Depot, in July 2013.[1] Id. at ¶¶ 47-54. On March 16, 2015, First Advantage moved to partially dismiss the suit, renewing its contention that Bolton's claims are untimely.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), dismissal is appropriate when a complaint fails to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. " Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A complaint fails to state a plausible claim if it "facially shows noncompliance with the limitations period." In re. South African Apartheid Litig., 617 F.Supp.2d 228, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, while statute of limitations defenses are affirmative defenses under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c), they may be adjudicated at the motion to dismiss stage provided courts "accept[] all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and draw[] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor, "' Wilson v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 671 F.3d 120, 128 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329, 335 (2d Cir. 2009)).

II. Analysis

A. Statute of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.