United States District Court, D. Arizona
Murray Snow, Judge
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.
to Plaintiff Sheila Deschaaf's Complaint, Defendants
“own, manage, maintain and or operate parking
facilities throughout Arizona. (Doc. 1 at 5.) Deschaaf alleges
that at some point on or after October 11, 2014,
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.)
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.
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.
I. Legal Standard
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).
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).
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).
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.”