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.

Deschaaf v. American Valet & Limousine Inc.

United States District Court, D. Arizona

February 15, 2017

Sheila Deschaaf, Plaintiff,
v.
American Valet & Limousine Incorporated, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          G. Murray Snow, Judge

         Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants American Valet & Limousine, Incorporated, and American Valet Charters, LLC. (Doc. 13.) For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.

         BACKGROUND

         According to Plaintiff Sheila Deschaaf's Complaint, Defendants “own, manage, maintain and or operate parking facilities throughout Arizona.[1] (Doc. 1 at 5.) Deschaaf alleges that at some point on or after October 11, 2014, [2] she received one or more receipts from Defendants, on which were “printed the expiration date of her credit card or debit card and the last four digits of her card number.” (Id. at 9.)

         Deschaaf alleges that this was a violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. Relevant here, FACTA provides that “no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print . . . the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1). That requirement became effective on December 4, 2004 for any device installed on or after January 1, 2005; and effective on December 4, 2006 for any device in use prior to January 1, 2005. 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(3). Deschaaf seeks relief on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals to be certified.

         Defendants move to dismiss Deschaaf's Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). They contend that Deschaaf lacks standing to bring the suit because she has not suffered a concrete injury in fact; alternatively, they contend that she has not plausibly alleged that any violation was willful, as required by FACTA. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is denied.

         DISCUSSION

          I. Legal Standard

         “The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving all jurisdictional facts.” Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir.1990) (citing McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936)). In effect, the court presumes lack of jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by the parties or the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

         The Constitution grants the federal courts the power to hear only “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. To have standing under Article III, plaintiffs must satisfy three elements. First, “the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact” that is not “conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (internal quotations omitted). This injury must be both “concrete and particularized.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016). Next, the injury must be “fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (internal quotations omitted). Finally, “it must be likely . . . that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

         “A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). “In deciding such a motion, all material allegations of the complaint are accepted as true, as well as all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them.” Id. However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

         To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain more than “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action”; it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement, ' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id.

         II. ...


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.