Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Gloria MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WINCO FOODS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant-Appellee.
MEMORANDUM **
Appellant Gloria Mitchell claims that her former employer, WinCo Foods, LLC (“WinCo”), violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). The district court dismissed her First Amended Complaint, filed as a class action, for lack of standing. To establish standing, Mitchell must show how “the specific procedural violations alleged in this case actually harm, or present a material risk of harm to” protected interests. Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 867 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2017). Mitchell’s pleadings claim only that WinCo’s job application forms failed to comply with the FCRA, but do not explain how those alleged violations harmed, or presented a material risk of harm to, the interests safeguarded by the statute. To the extent Mitchell argues that she was confused by the FCRA waiver and authorization, see Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d 492, 499–500 (9th Cir. 2017), Mitchell’s pleadings do not allege facts sufficient to support an inference of confusion. The district court therefore correctly concluded that her pleadings failed to establish standing.
The district court erred, however, in failing to grant leave to amend. Although Mitchell did not move for leave to amend, such leave should be granted “even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless [the district court] determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995) ). Mitchell argues on appeal that she should be granted leave to assert additional facts to establish her claim of concrete injury. We agree. The denial of Mitchell’s motion for reconsideration is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for the district court to grant leave to amend.
Finally, Mitchell has moved the Court to take judicial notice of documents outside the district court record. That motion is denied. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a).
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-35998
Decided: November 29, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)