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.

Johnson v. Casey's Gen. Stores, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southern Division

July 27, 2015

JACQUELINE JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
v.
CASEY'S GENERAL STORES, INC., Defendant

For Jacqueline Johnson, Plaintiff: Anna P. Prakash, E. Michelle Drake, John G. Albanese, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Minneapolis, MN; James Zouras, Jorge A. Gamboa, Ryan F Stephan, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, Stephan Zouras, LLP, Chicago, IL; Anthony Louis Dewitt, Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Goza-JC, Jefferson City, MO.

For Casey's General Stores, Inc., Defendant: Justin M. Dean, LEAD ATTORNEY, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart-KCMO, Kansas City, MO; Julie Zwibelman Devine, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart-StL, St. Louis, MO.

Page 945

ORDER

Hon. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 18) and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and/or Substitute Improper Defendant and Integrated Memorandum in Support. (Doc. No. 20). The Court has reviewed the pending Motions and denies them for the reasons set forth herein.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges Defendant Casey's General Stores, Inc. violated the stand-alone disclosure requirement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (" FCRA" ). Plaintiff is seeking damages on behalf of herself, and a class of similarly situated individuals,[1] including statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff claims on or around February 25, 2013, she applied to work as a pizza delivery driver for a Casey's location in Mountain Grove, Missouri. Plaintiff was already employed by Casey's in a customer service job. However, in order to be considered for a pizza delivery position she was required to reapply for the delivery position. Casey's required applicants for driving positions to undergo and pass a background check. Casey's used HireRight, Inc. to assist with the background checks.

When Plaintiff applied for the delivery position she was provided with an " Authorization Form for Consumer Reports FCRA Release," which she signed. The form Plaintiff signed is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 1. Plaintiff alleges Casey's had a policy to systematically procure consumer reports without first disclosing in writing to the consumer, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes. Plaintiff further alleges Casey's violations of the FCRA were willful.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's lawsuit pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). " To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint

Page 946

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to " state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). If the complaint alleges facts sufficient for the Court to draw a reasonable inference that Defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct, the claim has facial plausibility and will not be dismissed. Id. at 678. In analyzing a Motion to Dismiss, a court must accept Plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations as true. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir. 1988). While the Court accepts the complaint's factual allegations as true, it is not required to accept the plaintiff's legal conclusions. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. " Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id.

The court's assessment of whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a " context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 679. The reviewing court must read the complaint as a whole rather than analyzing each allegation in ...


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.