defendant wholesale screening solutions llcs notice to state court and

Cal. Super. - 1st Dist.February 25, 2021

TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 3 EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE. 800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 1. DEFENDANT WHOLESALE SCREENING SOLUTION LLC’S NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT 113062418v2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP Ryan A. Lewis, Bar No. 307253 ryan.lewis@troutman.com Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.477.5700 Facsimile: 415.477.5710 Attorneys for Defendant WHOLESALE SCREENING SOLUTIONS, LLC (Erroneously Sued Herein as Wholesale Screening, Inc.) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO MEGAN RUSH, individually, Plaintiff(s), v. CHECKR, INC., WHOLESALE SCREENING, INC., and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendant(s). Case No. CGC-20-585331 DEFENDANT WHOLESALE SCREENING SOLUTIONS LLC’S NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Complaint Filed: July 8, 2020 First Amended Complaint Filed: September 8, 2020 ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 02/05/2021 Clerk of the Court BY: JUDITH NUNEZ Deputy Clerk TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 3 EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE. 800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2. DEFENDANT WHOLESALE SCREENING SOLUTION LLC’S NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT 113062418v2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO THE CLERK OF THE SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PLAINTIFF MEGAN RUSH AND HER COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on February 5, 2021, Defendant Wholesale Screening Solutions LLC (incorrectly named in this action as “Wholesale Screening, Inc.”) filed a Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441 and 1446 (“Notice of Removal”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A conformed copy of the Notice of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit A to this Notice. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, by the filing of said Notice of Removal in the United States District Court, and by the filing of this Notice to State Court and Adverse Party of Removal, the above-entitled action has been removed from this Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1331, 1441 and 1446, and this action may proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded. Dated: February 5, 2021 TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP By: /s/ Ryan A. Lewis RYAN A. LEWIS Attorneys for Defendant WHOLESALE SCREENING SOLUTIONS, LLC Exhibit A T R O U T M A N P E P P E R H A M IL T O N S A N D E R S L L P T H R E E E M B A R C A D E R O C E N T E R , S U IT E 8 0 0 S A N F R A N C IS C O , C A 9 4 1 1 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION BY DEFENDANT WHOLESALE SCREENING SOLUTIONS, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP Ryan A. Lewis, Bar No. 307253 ryan.lewis@troutman.com Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415.477.5700 Facsimile: 415.477.5710 Attorneys for Defendant WHOLESALE SCREENING SOLUTIONS, LLC (Erroneously Sued Herein as Wholesale Screening, Inc.) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MEGAN RUSH, individually, Plaintiff(s), v. CHECKR, INC., WHOLESALE SCREENING, INC., and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendant(s). Case No. _________________ NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION BY DEFENDANT WHOLESALE SCREENING SOLUTIONS, LLC [28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441 & 1446] Complaint Filed: July 8, 2020 1st Amended Complaint Filed: September 8, 2020 Summons/Complaint Served: January 7, 2021 Removal from Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Case No.: CGC-20-585331 3:21-CV-915 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 1 of 58 T R O U T M A N P E P P E R H A M IL T O N S A N D E R S L L P T H R E E E M B A R C A D E R O C E N T E R , S U IT E 8 0 0 S A N F R A N C IS C O , C A 9 4 1 1 1 - 2 - NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION BY DEFENDANT WHOLESALE SCREENING SOLUTIONS, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND TO PLAINTIFF MEGAN RUSH AND HER ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Wholesale Screening Solutions, LLC (“WSS”)1 hereby removes the above-entitled action, Case No. CGC-20-585331 from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This Removal is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a) and 1446. This Notice is based upon the original jurisdiction of this Court over the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the existence of a federal question herein. In support of its Notice of Removal, WSS states as follows: PLEADINGS, PROCESSES, AND ORDERS 1. On July 8, 2020, Plaintiff Megan Rush (“Plaintiff”) filed a purported Class Action Complaint against Defendant Checkr, Inc. (“Checkr”) and WSS (collectively, WSS and Checkr are referred to as “Defendants”) in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, entitled Megan Rush v. Checkr, Inc., Case No. CGC-20-585331. On or about September 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against the same Defendants and similar, putative class action allegations. 2. Plaintiff’s FAC alleges four causes of action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”) against Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 1681e(b), 1681k(a)(2) and 1681i. 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), all process, pleadings, notices, and orders served upon Defendants in this action are attached as Exhibit A. 4. On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff dismissed Checkr with prejudice from this matter. A copy of the dismissal is included with Exhibit A. TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 5. On January 7, 2021, Plaintiff purported to serve WSS with a copy of the FAC. 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint incorrectly names WSS as “Wholesale Screening, Inc.” Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 2 of 58 T R O U T M A N P E P P E R H A M IL T O N S A N D E R S L L P T H R E E E M B A R C A D E R O C E N T E R , S U IT E 8 0 0 S A N F R A N C IS C O , C A 9 4 1 1 1 - 3 - NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION BY DEFENDANT WHOLESALE SCREENING SOLUTIONS, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. This Notice of Removal is timely as it is being filed within thirty (30) days after purported service of the Summons and Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 6(a)(1)(C); see also Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 354-56 (1999) (30-day deadline to remove commences upon service of the summons and complaint). BASIS FOR REMOVAL JURISDICTION 7. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that “the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over the instant action based on federal question jurisdiction in that Plaintiff’s FAC asserts claims under the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., a federal statute. 9. Removal of this action is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), which provides, in pertinent part, that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 10. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts four claims in her FAC. Her first claim is brought under Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA against Checkr. (Exhibit A, FAC, ¶¶ 42-49.) Her second claim is brought under Section 1681k(a)(2) of the FCRA against Checkr. (Id. At ¶¶ 50-57.) Her third claim is brought under Section 1681i of the FCRA against Checkr. (Id. At ¶¶ 58-63.) Her fourth claim is brought under Section 1681k(a)(2) of the FCRA against WSS. (Id. At ¶¶ 58-63.) In light of Plaintiff’s dismissal of Checkr, the only remaining claim in the FAC is the fourth cause of action against WSS under Section 1681k(a)(2). 11. Federal question jurisdiction exists over this action because the allegations asserted by Plaintiff in the FAC involve questions that will require resolution of significant, disputed issues arising under federal law. This case qualifies for federal question jurisdiction and is removable because Plaintiff’s FAC alleges claims under, and requires a ruling on, the FCRA. 12. In addition to satisfying the requirements of federal question jurisdiction, WSS has Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 3 of 58 T R O U T M A N P E P P E R H A M IL T O N S A N D E R S L L P T H R E E E M B A R C A D E R O C E N T E R , S U IT E 8 0 0 S A N F R A N C IS C O , C A 9 4 1 1 1 - 4 - NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION BY DEFENDANT WHOLESALE SCREENING SOLUTIONS, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 met all other requirements for removal. Checkr is no longer a party to the litigation, thus its consent to the removal is not required. VENUE 13. Venue lies in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 84(a), 1391, 1441(a) and 1446(a). This action was originally brought in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, and thus should be removed to the San Francisco or Oakland Division of this Court per Civil Local Rules 3-2(c) and (d). SERVICE OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL ON STATE COURT 14. A true and correct copy of this Notice of Removal will be promptly served on Plaintiff and filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Francisco as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 15. By filing this Notice of Removal, WSS does not concede nor waive any defense or motion relating to this action, including (but not limited to) that (i) Plaintiff has agreed to arbitrate the claim asserted in the Complaint on an individual basis; and (ii) Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action. WSS reserves all defenses relating to the Court’s jurisdiction and the justiciability of this action. WHEREFORE, Wholesale Screening Solutions, LLC respectfully requests that this civil action be removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco or Oakland Division. Dated: February 5, 2021 TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP By: /s/ Ryan A. Lewis RYAN A. LEWIS Attorneys for Defendant Wholesale Screening Solutions, LLC Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 4 of 58 T R O U T M A N P E P P E R H A M IL T O N S A N D E R S L L P T H R E E E M B A R C A D E R O C E N T E R , S U IT E 8 0 0 S A N F R A N C IS C O , C A 9 4 1 1 1 - 5 - NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION BY DEFENDANT WHOLESALE SCREENING SOLUTIONS, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATION AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 5th day of February 2021, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF and a copy of the foregoing was served via email and overnight mail on the following counsel: Devin H. Fok DHF Law 16 N. Marengo Ave. Suite 403 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (888) 651-6411 Email: devin@devinfoklaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff MEGAN RUSH TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP By: /s/ Ryan A. Lewis RYAN A. LEWIS Attorneys for Defendant WHOLESALE SCREENING SOLUTIONS, LLC Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 5 of 58 Exhibit A Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 6 of 58 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 7 of 58 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 8 of 58 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 9 of 58 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 10 of 58 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 11 of 58 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 12 of 58 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 13 of 58 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 14 of 58 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 15 of 58 CASE NUMBER: CGC-20-585331 MEGAN RUSH VS. CHECKR, INC. ET AL NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF A Case Management Conference is set for: DATE: DEC-09-2020 TIME: 10:30AM PLACE: Department 610 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-3680 All parties must appear and comply with Local Rule 3. CRC 3.725 requires the filing and service of a case management statement form CM-110 no later than 15 days before the case management conference. However, it would facilitate the issuance of a case management order without an appearance at the case management conference if the case management statement is filed, served and lodged in Department 610 twenty-five (25) days before the case management conference. Plaintiff must serve a copy of this notice upon each party to this action with the summons and complaint. Proof of service subsequently filed with this court shall so state. This case is eligible for electronic filing and service per Local Rule 2.11. For more information, please visit the Court's website at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org under Online Services. [DEFENDANTS: Attending the Case Management Conference does not take the place of filing a written response to the complaint. You must file a written response with the court within the time limit required by law. See Summons.] ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS IT IS THE POLICY OF THE SUPERIOR COURT THAT EVERY CIVIL CASE SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN MEDIATION, ARBITRATION, NEUTRAL EVALUATION, AN EARLY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FORM OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PRIOR TO A TRIAL. (SEE LOCAL RULE 4) Plaintiff must serve a copy of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Package on each defendant along with the complaint. (CRC 3.221.) The ADR package may be accessed at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/civil/dispute-resolution or you may request a paper copy from the filing clerk. All counsel must discuss ADR with clients and opposing counsel and provide clients with a copy of the ADR Information Package prior to filing the Case Management Statement. Superior Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Administrator 400 McAllister Street, Room 103-A San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 551-3869 See Local Rules 3.3, 6.0 C and 10 B re stipulation to judge pro tem. Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 16 of 58 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 17 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST AMEMDED COMPLAINT Devin Fok (SBN #256599) devin@devinfoklaw.com DHF Law, PC 16 North Marengo Avenue Suite 403 Pasadena, CA 91101 Ph: (888) 651-6411 Fax: (818) 484-2023 Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO MEGAN RUSH, individually, Plaintiff(s), vs. CHECKR, INC., WHOLESALE SCREENING INC., and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: CGC-20-585331 INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiff MEGAN RUSH (hereafter “Plaintiff”) files her Complaint against Defendant CHECKR, INC., a foreign corporation doing business in California (hereafter as “Checkr”); Defendant WHOLESALE SCREENING SOLUTIONS LLC, a foreign corporation (hereafter as “WSS”) and DOES 1- 10 inclusive (hereafter all collectively “Defendants”), and alleges as follows: ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 09/08/2020 Clerk of the Court BY: ERNALYN BURA Deputy Clerk Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 18 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action arising out of an erroneous background check report issued by Checkr causing Plaintiff to lose her employment opportunity. 2. On or about March 23, 2020, Checkr furnished an employment background check report to Plaintiff’s prospective employer. 3. The report disclosed a May 7, 2019 misdemeanor theft charge stating that Plaintiff has a warrant for her arrest. 4. In fact, the warrant was recalled on November 12, 2019 and the case was dismissed on the same date. 5. Plaintiff was never prosecuted for the crime. 6. In furnishing its reports, Checkr never obtained criminal history information directly from the courthouse. Rather, it purchased the information second-hand from a criminal records wholesaler called Wholesale Screening Solutions (“WSS”). 7. WSS’ records appear to be incomplete and outdated by at least 6 months. It does not disclose any disposition other than a warrant was issued. It does not disclose that the warrant had been recalled and the case had been dismissed more than 6 months ago. 8. Nevertheless, WSS’ own records disclosed that the warrant was not active. 9. Nevertheless, this was never communicated on Checkr’s report and that any employer reviewing the report can be misled into believing that there is an active warrant out for Plaintiff’s arrest. 10. More egregiously, Checkr ignored Plaintiff’s dispute and never issued an updated report. To date, Plaintiff has never been hired her by prospective employer. Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 19 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 11. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA” 15 USC §1681 et seq.) §1681e(b), Defendants were required to use reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information reported. Simply purchasing second-hand criminal history information which had been outdated by more than 6 months is a clear violation of this statute. 12. In addition, when disclosing criminal records for employment purposes, a background check company is further required to use strict procedures to ensure that the reported information is complete and up to date. 13. The background check report which fails to disclose the current disposition of “dismissed” is not complete and not up-to-date. 14. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks recovery for her actual damages, including loss of earnings, emotional distress, and damage to her reputation. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. THE PARTIES 15. The Plaintiff, Megan Rush, is a resident of the County of Mecklenburg County, Charlotte, North Carolina. She is a “consumer” as per 15 U.S.C. §1681a(c). 16. Checkr, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation with its principal of place in San Francisco, California. It is a “Consumer Reporting Agency” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §1681a(f) because it is a “person which, for monetary fees, dues…regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 20 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports.” (Emphasis added). 17. The background screening report generated by Checkr on the Plaintiff is a “Consumer Report” within the meanings of 15 U.S.C §1681a(d). A “Consumer Report” is “any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for….employment.” (Emphasis added). 18. Wholesale Screening Solutions LLC or WSS, is a corporation headquartered at Purcellville, Virginia. It is also a “Consumer Reporting Agency” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §1681a(f) because it is a “person which, for monetary fees, dues…regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports.” (Emphasis added). 19. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1-10, inclusive, and therefore sues those Defendants by such capacities when such information is ascertained. 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Doe Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged and that Plaintiff’s damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by such occurrences. Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 21 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein mentioned, Defendants DOES 1-10, were agents of each other and of the named Defendants and in doing the things alleged in this complaint, were acting in the scope of such agency and with the permission and consent of Defendants. FACTS 22. On or about March 23, 2020, Checkr furnished a background check report or Consumer Report to Plaintiff’s prospective employer. 23. The report disclosed a May 7, 2019 misdemeanor theft charge stating that Plaintiff has a warrant for her arrest. See Exhibit 1 Page 4. 24. In fact, the warrant was recalled on November 12, 2019 and the case was dismissed on the same date. The Plaintiff was never prosecuted for the crime. See Exhibit 2 (Minutes Report, 19th Judicial District Court) 25. In furnishing its report, Checkr never obtained criminal history information directly from the courthouse. Rather, it purchased the information second-hand from its vendor, Wholesale Screening Solutions or WSS, a criminal records wholesaler. 26. WSS’ records itself appear to be incomplete and outdated by at least 6 months. 27. Moreover, WSS’ own records disclosed that the warrant was not active. See Exhibit 3. 28. Nevertheless, this was never disclosed on Defendant Checkr’s consumer report and that any employer reviewing the report can be misled into believing that there is an active warrant out for Plaintiff’s arrest. Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 22 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 29. More egregiously, Defendant Checkr ignored Plaintiff’s dispute and never issued an updated report. To date, Plaintiff has never been hired by prospective employer. 30. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA” 15 USC §1681 et seq.) §1681e(b), Defendant Checkr was required to use reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information reported. Simply purchasing second-hand criminal history information which had been outdated by more than 6 months is a clear violation of this statute. 31. In addition, when disclosing criminal records for employment purposes, a background check company is further required to use strict procedures to ensure that the reported information is complete and up to date. 15 USC §1681k(a)(2). 32. The background check report by Defendant Checkr which fails to disclose the current disposition of “dismissed” is not complete and not up to date. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS AGAINST WSS 33. The Plaintiff pleads the following class action claim against WSS, on behalf of herself and the Class defined below: Claim No. 4: Selling criminal history information relating to the consumer where there is no final disposition of conviction or dismissal and with no future court date stated. Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 23 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 34. The Plaintiff asserts the above Claim on behalf of herself and the “Incomplete Records Class” defined as follows: 1. All consumers for whom WSS, in the five years predating the filing of this Complaint and continuing through the date the class list is prepared, sold a consumer report information to where no final disposition of a criminal charge was disclosed and no future court date stated. 35. Numerosity: The Class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable. WSS, regularly sells consumer information that are inaccurate, incomplete and not updated. 36. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the members of the Class. WSS routinely sells consumer report information to CRAs to be used in background check reports generated for employment purposes and typically includes inaccurate information as well as public records information which is incomplete and not updated. The FCRA violations suffered by Plaintiff are typical of those suffered by other class members and WSS treated Plaintiff consistent with other class members in accordance with its standard policies and practices. 37. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and has retained counsel experienced in complex class action litigation. 38. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class, including but not limited to: Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 24 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -8- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES a) Whether WSS furnishes criminal records information to CRAs to be used in the preparation and sale of consumer reports by CRAS to potential Employers; b) Whether WSS violated the FCRA by furnishing inaccurate, incomplete and outdated criminal records information as prohibited by the FCRA; c) Whether WSS knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the criminal records information furnished by it is inaccurate, incomplete, and not up-to-date; d) Whether the WSS’ violations of the FCRA were willful; e) The proper measure of statutory damages; and f) The proper measure of punitive damages. 39. This case is maintainable as a class action because prosecution of actions by or against individual members of the Class would result in inconsistent or varying adjudications and create the risk of incompatible standards of conduct for WSS. Further, adjudication of each individual class member’s claim as separate action would prospectively be dispositive of the interest of other individuals not a party to such action, impeding their ability to protect their interests. 40. Class certification is also appropriate because questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class, and because a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. WSS’s conduct described in this Class Action allegation stems from common and uniform policies and practices, resulting in common violations of the FCRA. Class certification also will obviate the need for unduly duplicative litigation that might result in inconsistent judgments concerning WSS’s Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 25 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -9- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES practices. Moreover, management of this action as a class action will not present any likely difficulties. In the interests of justice and judicial efficiency, it would be desirable to concentrate the litigation of all class members’ claims in a single forum. 41. Plaintiff intends to send notice to all members of the Class to the extent required Rule 3.766 (a) of California Rules of Court. The names and addresses of the class members are available from WSS’s records. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (15 USC §1681e(b) against Checkr, Inc. and Does 1-5) (Plaintiff individually, and on behalf of herself) 42. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of each and every paragraph above. 43. Checkr willfully and/or recklessly violated the above-referenced sections of the FCRA by disclosing erroneous information that it purchased second-hand from a criminal records wholesaler. 44. Checkr’s conduct was willful and/or reckless because it knew that its failure to consult the original source of the criminal history information is insufficient to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the criminal history information reported. 45. Moreover, the Plaintiff is informed, and believes, and thereon alleges that Checkr exclusively purchases criminal history information from WSS for the relevant jurisdiction and that it knew, based on complaints of accuracy of prior consumers that the information sold by WSS was not accurate, complete, or up-to-date. 46. Plaintiff is informed, and believes, and thereon alleges that Checkr failed to sufficiently conduct audits, reviews, or quality control of the information it purchases from WSS despite numerous complaints. Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 26 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -10- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 47. Accordingly, Checkr knew, or had reason to know that WSS’ records routinely produce erroneous information. Despite this knowledge, it failed to utilize sufficient procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the information reported. 48. Checkr’s willful and/or reckless violation of the statute entitles Plaintiff actual damages, attorney’s fees as well as statutory penalties. 49. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that Checkr’s violations were negligent. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (15 USC §1681k(a)(2) against Checkr, Inc. and Does 1-5) (Plaintiff individually, and on behalf of herself) 50. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of each and every paragraph above. 51. Checkr willfully and/or recklessly violated the above-referenced sections of the FCRA by disclosing erroneous information that it purchased second-hand from a criminal records wholesale. 52. Checkr’s conduct was willful and/or reckless because it knew that its failure to consult the original source of the criminal history information is insufficient to ensure that the reported information is complete and up to date. 53. Moreover, Plaintiff is informed, and believes, and thereon alleges that Checkr exclusively purchases criminal history information from WSS for the relevant jurisdiction and that it knew, based on complaints of accuracy of prior consumers that the information sold by WSS was not accurate, complete, or up-to-date. 54. Plaintiff is informed, and believes, and thereon alleges that Checkr failed to sufficiently conduct audits, reviews, or quality control of the information it purchases from WSS despite numerous complaints. Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 27 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -11- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 55. Accordingly, Checkr knew, or had reason to know that WSS’ records routinely produce erroneous information. Despite this knowledge, it failed to utilize sufficient procedures to ensure that the reported information is complete and up to date. 56. Checkr’s willful and/or reckless violation of the statute entitles Plaintiff actual damages, attorney’s fees as well as statutory penalties. 57. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Checkr’s violations were negligent. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (15 USC §1681i against Checkr, Inc. and Does 1-5) (Plaintiff individually, and on behalf of herself) 58. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of each and every paragraph above. 59. Checkr willfully and/or recklessly violated the above-referenced sections of the FCRA by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation. 60. To date, no updated report has ever been issued. Moreover, Checkr has never provided notice regarding its determination of the merits of Plaintiff’s dispute as required by the FCRA. 61. Checkr willfully and/or recklessly ignored Plaintiff’s dispute knowing full well that it will result in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s valuable employment opportunity. 62. Checkr’s willful and/or reckless violation of the statute entitles Plaintiff actual damages, attorney’s fees as well as statutory penalties. 63. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Checkr’s violations were negligent. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (15 USC §1681k(a)(2) against WSS and Does 6-10) Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 28 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -12- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the Incomplete Records Class) 64. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of each and every paragraph above. 65. WSS willfully and/or recklessly violated the above-referenced sections of the FCRA by selling consumer reports that are inaccurate by virtue of the fact that the reports are incomplete and outdated. 66. WSS is one of the largest wholesalers of criminal records information. It routinely sells criminal records information to CRAs nationwide. 67. On their website they claim that “as a wholesale provider of criminal records research, civil records, and verifications, we offer research and background data you can trust.”1 68. They further claim that their success stems from “strict quality control practices of our local onsite researchers who obtain records directly from the authoritative source.” 69. Despite such claims, in this case, they furnished inaccurate, incomplete and obsolete criminal record information about the Plaintiff and other Class members. 70. WSS’s violation was willful and/or reckless because their information routinely did not include the final disposition of a case. 71. Any reasonable person would know that issue of an arrest warrant is not a final disposition of the case. This is particularly so where the arrest warrant is not listed as “active” in WSS’ own system and that no future court date is found. A warrant that is not listed as “active” must mean that it has been recalled. This clearly means that the case was not pending and that the final disposition of the case must be ascertained. 1 https://www.wholesalescreening.com/about/ (last visited on 08/07/2020) Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 29 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -13- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 72. Disclosure of criminal history information with no final disposition of either “dismissed” or “guilty/convicted” is a serious problem that is foreseeable and easily preventable. For example, any record within its database that does not have any such disposition and does not have a future court date should be flagged and should not be reported unless strict procedure is utilized to ensure that the information is complete and up-to-date. 73. Further, despite the clear and unambiguous statutory text in this regard and there being a depth of guidance about the policies and procedures they need to follow, they furnished inaccurate, incomplete and outdated criminal records information. By doing so, WSS voluntarily ran a risk of violating the law substantially greater than the risk associated with a reading that was merely careless. 74. WSS’s willful and/or reckless violation of the statute entitles Plaintiff and the members of the Incomplete Records Class to statutory penalties of $100 to $1,000. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: a. Determining that this action may proceed as an individual complaint against Checkr and as a class action against WSS.; b. Designating Plaintiff as representative for the Class and designating Plaintiff’s Counsel as counsel for the Class; c. Issuing proper notice to the Class at WSS’s expense; d. For a declaration that both the Defendants’ practices violated the statutes as specified above; e. For statutory, compensatory, special, general, and punitive damages according to proof and as applicable against all Defendants; Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 30 of 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -14- FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES f. For interest upon such damages as permitted by law; g. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees provided by law under all applicable statutes; h. For the costs of suit; i. For injunctive relief as applicable; and j. For such other orders of the Court and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff and the Class hereby request and demand a jury trial on all issues triable by jury. DATED: September 8, 2020 DEVIN H. FOK ESQ. DHF LAW, P.C. By: ______________________________ Devin H. Fok Attorney for Plaintiff Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 31 of 58 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 1. DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ROD M. FLIEGEL, Bar No. 168289 rfliegel@littler.com BRIDGET O’HARA, Bar No. 313945 bohara@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Attorneys for Defendant CHECKR, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO MEGAN RUSH, individually, Plaintiff(s), v. CHECKR, INC., WHOLESALE SCREENING INC., and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendant(s). Case No. CGC-20-585331 DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Complaint Initially Filed: July 8, 2020 First Amended Complaint Filed: September 8, 2020 ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 11/12/2020 Clerk of the Court BY: VANESSA WU Deputy Clerk Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 32 of 58 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 2. DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant Checkr, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Checkr”), through its undersigned counsel, answers the unverified First Amended Complaint (“Complaint” or “FAC”) of Plaintiff Megan Rush (“Plaintiff”).1 GENERAL DENIAL 1. Pursuant to section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant hereby answers Plaintiff’s unverified Complaint by generally denying each and every allegation contained therein, by denying that Plaintiff has been damaged or has sustained any damages as a result of the conduct alleged therein, and by asserting the following separate and distinct additional defenses. ADDITIONAL DEFENSES Without admitting any of the allegations of the Complaint and without admitting or acknowledging that Defendant bears any burden of proof as to any of them, Defendant asserts the following additional defenses. Defendant intends to rely upon any additional defenses that become available or apparent during pretrial proceedings and discovery in this action, and hereby reserves the right to amend this Answer to assert all such further defenses. FIRST DEFENSE 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. SECOND DEFENSE 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause of action contained therein, are barred in whole or in part because, at all material times, Defendant acted reasonably, in good faith and without malice based upon all relevant facts and circumstances known by Defendant at the time, and did not at any time willfully or negligently fail to comply with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). THIRD DEFENSE 3. Plaintiff's claims for statutory damages and punitive damages violate the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the 1 By submitting this filing, Defendant does not concede this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant reserves all arguments, objections and defenses. Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 33 of 58 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 3. DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 corresponding provisions of state law because: (a) the punitive damages claimed are vastly disproportionate to the statutory and/or actual damages claimed or available; (b) the award of punitive and/or statutory damages would constitute an arbitrary and capricious taking of Defendant’s property which is unjustified by any rational governmental interest; and/or (c) the award of punitive damages with wholly standardless discretion is inconsistent with due process. FOURTH DEFENSE 4. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff did not suffer any cognizable injury or other harm as a proximate result of any alleged act or omission of Defendant or its agents or employees. FIFTH DEFENSE 5. Defendant alleges that Section 616 of the FCRA (15 U.S.C. § 1681n) is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous and unjustifiably arbitrary. SIXTH DEFENSE 6. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part (including but not limited to for lack of jurisdiction or venue) to the extent that Plaintiff or any members of the putative class are bound to arbitrate their claims, including that they are bound to arbitrate their claims on an individual basis. This may include, for instance, where Plaintiff or members of the putative class signed a binding arbitration agreement with Checkr, with a third-party, or with both. SEVENTH DEFENSE 7. Defendant alleges that it has maintained reasonable procedures to comply with applicable law at all times relevant to Plaintiff’s Complaint, it complied with the FCRA in the handling of Plaintiff’s reports and disputes, and is therefore entitled to each and every defense stated in and available under the FCRA and to all limitations of liability. EIGHTH DEFENSE 8. Plaintiff’s claims are excluded from coverage by Section 607 of the FCRA (15 U.S.C. § 1681e) to the extent that Defendant prepared any background reports in connection with an investigation of compliance with federal, state or local laws and regulations or any of Defendant’s customers’ pre-existing policies (15 U.S.C. § 1681a(y)). Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 34 of 58 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 4. DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NINTH DEFENSE 9. Assuming Plaintiff suffered or sustained any loss, damage or injury, which Defendant specifically denies, such loss, damage or injury was proximately caused or contributed to by the negligence or wrongful conduct of other parties, persons or entities, and that their negligence or wrongful conduct was an intervening and superseding cause of the purported loss, damage or injury of which Plaintiff complains. Plaintiff’s damages, if any, as against Defendant, must therefore be reduced by the proportion of fault attributable to such third parties, and to the extent that this is necessary, Defendant may be entitled to partial indemnity from such third parties on a comparative fault basis. TENTH DEFENSE 10. All of the damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff could have been avoided by the principles of mitigation and the doctrine of avoidable consequences and all similar and equivalent doctrines. ELEVENTH DEFENSE 11. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred in whole or in part to the extent Plaintiff failed to comply fully or at all with procedures available and/or required under the FCRA to address Plaintiff’s concerns and/or otherwise failed to take reasonable steps to avoid harm. TWELFTH DEFENSE 12. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because she lacks Article III standing and/or because individuals covered by her putative class definitions lack Article III standing, statutory standing, or were not in the zone of interests Congress intended to protect in enacting the FCRA. THIRTEENTH DEFENSE 13. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because under the circumstances of this case, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), 1681k and/or 1681i would be unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff and/or the putative class members under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 35 of 58 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 th F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 .4 3 3 .1 9 40 5. DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FOURTEENTH DEFENSE 14. Plaintiff’s suit may not be properly maintained as a class action because: (a) Plaintiff has failed to plead and cannot establish the necessary procedural elements for class treatment; (b) a class action is not an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims described in the FAC; (c) common issues of fact or law do not predominate - to the contrary, individual issues predominate as to liability and separately as to the alleged damages; (d) Plaintiff’s claims are not representative or typical of the claims of the putative class; (e) Plaintiff is not a proper class representative for the putative class; (f) Plaintiff cannot fairly and adequately represent the interests of the putative class; and (g) Plaintiff and the counsel for the putative class are not adequate representatives for the putative class. If the Court certifies a class in this case over Defendant’s objections, then Defendant asserts each and every defense set forth herein against each and every member of the certified class. FIFTEENTH DEFENSE 15. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Checkr’s communications of information concerning Plaintiff and/or putative class members were not “consumer reports,” or fell within a statutory exception to the definition of “consumer report” found in the FCRA (see, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(y)). SIXTEENTH DEFENSE 16. Certification of a class, and the adjudication of the claims of the putative class through generalized class-wide proof, as applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, would constitute a denial of Defendant’s right to trial by jury and to substantive and procedural due process. See, e.g., Wal-Mart v. Dukes (2011) 131 S. Ct. 2541. SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE 17. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that Plaintiff’s or the putative class members’ pursuit of claims against Checkr or other third-parties in other actions, the resolution of those claims, or verdicts entered in those claims would result in more than one recovery for the same underlying injury or violate the “one satisfaction rule.” Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 36 of 58 LITTLER MENDELSON, P .C. 3 3 3 B u sh S t r e e t 3 4 t h F l o o r S a n F ra n c i s co , C A 9 4 1 0 4 4 1 5 . 4 3 3 . 1 9 40 6. DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant’s investigation is continuing, and it reserves the right to amend its Answer and to raise additional defenses that may arise during the course of the litigation. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff as follows: 1. That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice; 2. That Plaintiff takes nothing by way of the Complaint; 3. That Defendant recover its attorney’s fees, costs and disbursements in this action; and 4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: November 11, 2020 ROD M. FLIEGEL BRIDGET O’HARA LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant CHECKR, INC. 4810-7982-6895.2 091435.1079 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 37 of 58 American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com Page 1 of 1 Form Approved for Optional Use Judicial Council of California POS-050/EFS-050 [Rev. February 1, 2017] PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE (Proof of Service/Electronic Filing and Service) Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251 www.courts.ca.gov POS-050/EFS-050 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR NO: FOR COURT USE ONLY NAME ROD M. FLIEGEL, SBN 168289 BRIDGET O’HARA, SBN 313945 FIRM NAME: LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. STREET ADDRESS: 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor CITY: San Francisco STATE: CA ZIP CODE:94104 TELEPHONE NO.: 415.433.1940 FAX NO.: 415.399.8490 E-MAIL ADDRESS: rfliegel@littler.com/bohara@littler.com ATTORNEY FOR (name): Defendant CHECKR, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: 400 McAllister CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Francisco, CA 94102 BRANCH NAME: CASE NUMBER: CGC-20-585331 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: MEGAN RUSH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: CHECKR, INC., et al. JUDICIAL OFFICER: PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT: 1. I am at least 18 years old. a. My residence or business address is (specify): 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 b. My electronic service address is (specify): akawase@littler.com 2. I electronically served the following documents (exact titles): DEFENDANT CHECKR, INC.’S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT The documents served are listed in an attachment. (Form POS-050(D)/EFS-050(D) may be used for this purpose.) 3. I electronically served the documents listed in 2 as follows: a. Name of person served: 1) Devin H. Fok 2) H. Scott Kelly, David Anthony and Meagan Mihalko On behalf of (name or names of parties represented, if person served is an attorney): 1) Plaintiff Megan Rush 2) Defendant Wholesale Screening Solutions, LLC b. Electronic service address of person served : 1) devin@devinfoklaw.com 2) Scott.Kelly@troutman.com; David.Anthony@troutman.com; Meagan.Mihalko@troutman.com c. On (date): November 12, 2020 The documents listed in item 2 were served electronically on the persons and in the manner described in an attachment. (Form POS-050(P)/EFS-050(P) may be used for this purpose.) Date: November 12, 2020 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Anne Kawase  (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) 4852-9618-4530.1 091435.1079 ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 11/12/2020 Clerk of the Court BY: VANESSA WU Deputy Clerk Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 38 of 58 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 400 MCALLISTER STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-4514 MEGAN RUSH Case Management Department 610 Case Management Order PLAINTIFF (S) VS. NO. CGC-20-585331 CHECKR, INC. et al Order Continuing Case Management Conference DEFENDANT (S) TO: ALL COUNSEL AND SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS The Dec-09-2020 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is canceled, and it is hereby ordered: This case is set for a case management conference on Jan-20-2021 in Department 610 at 10:30 am. CRC 3.725 requires the filing and service of a case management statement form CM-110 no later than fifteen (15) days before the case management conference. However, it would facilitate the issuance of a case management order without an appearance at the case management conference if the case management statement is filed and served twenty-five (25) days before the case management conference. PLAINTIFF(S) must serve a copy of this notice on all parties not listed on the attached proof of service within five (5) days of the date of this order. DATED: NOV-19-2020 GARRETT L. WONG JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Order Continuing Case Management Conference Form 000001 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 39 of 58 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL I, the undersigned, certify that I am an employee of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco and not a party to the above-entitled cause and that on NOV-19-2020 I served the attached Order Continuing Case Management Conference by placing a copy thereof in an envelope addressed to all parties to this action as listed below. I then placed the envelope in the outgoing mail at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, on the date indicated above for collection, sealing of the envelope, attachment of required prepaid postage, and mailing on that date, following standard court practice. Dated : NOV-19-2020 By: VANESSA WU ROD M FLIEGEL (168289) LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 333 BUSH STREET, 34TH FLR. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 DEVIN FOK (256599) DHF LAW, PC 16 NORTH MARENGO AVENUE SUITE 403 PASADENA, CA 91101 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL Page 1 of 1 Form 000001 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 40 of 58 ATTCRMEY oR PATITY wlTHQUT ATToRNEY~ 330 avrMMNM MM waaaar Devln H. Fok, Esq. (¹256599) DHF Law, P.C. 16 North Marengo Avenue, Suite 403 Pasadena, CA 91101 033 No. ropaaaatr 818-484-2023888-651-6411 Eaaac AOOREES PREMMA devinggdevinfoklaw.corn ATTORJMY mn INMME Megan Rush SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ETREET monsm 400 McAllister Street MAYJNo Aoorwss: 400 McAliister Street cnv AJEJ cpccoe San Francisco 94102-4514 CM-110 PLJUNTIFFJPETITIOHER: MEGAN RUSH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: CHECKR. INC. at sl CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Check one): ~x UNLIMITED CASE ~ UMITED CASE (Amount demanded (Amount demanded is $25,000 exceeds $25,000) or less) CGC-20-585331 A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Is scheduled as follows; Date: December 9, 2020 Time: 10:30 a.m. DepLI 610 Address of court (if ddferanl from the address above)J Dive ~ Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone, by (name)r INSTRUCTIONS: All applicable boxes must be checked, and the speclTled Information must be provided. 1. Party or parties (answer one)J a. ~ This statement is submitted by party (name)J Plaintiff Megan Rush b. ~ This statement is submified jointly by parlies (names)J 2. Complaint and cross-complaint (Io be answenrd by plaintiffs and cmss-complainanls only) a. The complaint was filed on (dafe): July 8, 2020 b. ~ The cross-complaint, if any, was filed on (date)J 3. Senrice (to be answered by p/a/nhifs and cross-compfainanfs only) a. ~ All parties named in the complaint and cross-complaint have been served, have appeared, or have been dismissed. b. ~ The following parties named in the complaint or cross-complaint (1) ~ have not been served (specify names and explain why not): (2) ~ have been served but have not appeared and have not been dismissed (specily names)J (3) ~ have had a default entered against them (specify names)r c. ~ The following additional parties may be added (specify names, narure of involvement in case, and dale by which they may be served): 4. Description of case a. Type of case in ~x complaint ~ crossMwmplaint (Descrihe, induding causes of action)J Loss of employmenl as a result of Defendants'rroneous background check reporL p MMpau lar Maaaaaar U AMNM CMMMI al CallMM cM-I la Fla Jalr \, 201 ll CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Cal RM fCPYRIM 3 220-3.330 aaMta 30.00 ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 12/08/2020 Clerk of the Court BY: VANESSA WU Deputy Clerk Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 41 of 58 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: MEGAN RUSH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT. CHECKR,INC.etal CASE NUMBER CGC-20-585331 CM-110 4. b. Provide a brief statement of the case, induding any damages. (If personal injury damages are sought, specify the Injury and damages claimed, including medical expenses Io date (indicate source and amount), astimaled future medical expenses, lost earnings to date, and estimated future lost earnings. If equitable relief is sought, descnbe the natura of the relief) ~ a noniury trial. (If mom than one party, provide ihe name of each party ~x (If more space is needed, check this box and attach a page designated as Attachment 4b.j Jury or nonjury trial a. The party or parties request ~x a lory trial requesting a jury trial)i Trial date a. ~ The trial has been set for (dale): b. ~x No trial date has been set. This case will be ready for trial within 12 months of the date of the filing of the complaint (if not, explain): c. Dates on which parties or attorneys wilt not be available for trial (specify dates and explain reasons for unavailability): Estimated length of trial The party or parties estimate that the trial will take (check one)i a. ~x days (specify number): 7-10 days b ~ hours (short causes) (specify)i Trial representation (to be answered for each party) The party or parties will be represented at trial ~x by the attorney or party listed in the caption ~ by the following: a. Attorney: b. Firm: c. Address: d. Telephone number: e. E-mail address:~ Additional representation is described in Attachment 8. Preference~ This case is entitled to preference (specify code sectionji f. Fax number: g. Party represented: 10. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) a. ADR information package. Please note that different ADR processes are available in different courts and communities; read the ADR information package provided by the court under rule 3.221 for information about the processes available through the court and community programs in this case. (1) For parties represented by counsel: Counsel ~x has ~ has not provided the ADR information package identrlied in rule 3.221 to the cfient and reviewed ADR options with the client. (2) For self-represented parties: Party ~ has ~ has not reviewed the ADR information package identified In rule 3.221. b. Referral to judicial arbitration or civil action mediation (if available). (1)~ This matter is subject to mandatory judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.11 or to civil acfion mediation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1775.3 because the amount in controversy does not exceed the statutory limit. (2)~ Plaintiff clams to refer Ibis case to judicial arbitration and agrees to limit recovery to the amount spec%ed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.11. (3)~ This case is exempt from judicial arbitration under rule 3.811 of the California Rules of Court or from civil acfion mediation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1775 et seq. (specify exemptionji CM-110 IRA 0vr 'i. 2011I CASE NIANAGEMENT STATEMENT PBB 2MB Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 42 of 58 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: MEGAN RUSH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT CHECKR,INC etsl CASE MUMEEe CGC-20-565331 CM-110 10. c. Indicate the ADR process or processes that the party or parties are willing to partlrspate in, have agreed to participate in, or have already parbcipated in (checlr a/I that apply and provide rhe spectded infonnalron)r (1) Mediahon The party or parties completing this form are willing to parlidpate in the following ADR processes (check aff that app/y): If the party or parties complebng this form in the case have agreed to participate in or have already completed an ADR process or processes, indicate the status of the processes (attach a copy of the psrfies'DR stipulation)r ~x Mediation session not yet scheduled~ Mediation session scheduled for (dale)r~ Agreed to complete mediation by (date):~ Mediation completed on (dele): (2) Settlement conference ~x Settlement conference not yet scheduled~ Settlement conference scheduled for (date)r~ Agreed to complete settlement conference by(date)r~ Settlement conference completed on(date): (3) Neutral evaluation ~x Neutral evaluation not yet scheduled~ Neutral evaluation scheduled for (date):~ Agreed to complete neutral evaluation by (date):~ Neutral evaluafron completed on (date)r (4) Nonbinding judidal arbitration ~ Judicial arbitration not yet scheduled~ Judicial arbitration scheduled for (date)r~ Agreed to complete judidal arbitration by (date)r~ Judicial arbitration completed on (dale)r (5) Binding private arbitration ~ Private arbitration not yet scheduled~ Private arbitration scheduled for (dale):~ Agreed to complete private arbitration by (dale)r~ Private arbitration completed on (date): (6) Other (specify): ~ ADR session not yet scheduled~ ADR session scheduled for (dare)r~ Agreed to complete ADR session by (dere):~ ADR completed on (date)r cM-110 ln Jur 1, 2011I CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT 031M 3 d 5 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 43 of 58 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: MEGAN RUSH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: CHECKR, INC. et si CASE NUMBER CGC-20-585331 CM-110 11. Insurance a. ~ Insurance carrier, if any, for party filing this statement (name)i b. Reservation of rights: ~ Yes ~ No c. ~ Coverage issues will significantly affect resolution of this case (explain); 12. Jurisdiction Indicate any matters that may affed the court's Jurisdiction or processing of this case and describe the status.~ Bankruptcy ~ Other (specify): Status: 13. Related cases, consolidation, and coordination a. ~ There are companion, underlying, or related cases. (1) Name of case. (2) Name of courti (3) Case number: (4) Status:~ Additional cases are described in Attachment 13a. b. ~ A motion to ~ consofidate ~ coordinate will be filed by (name party): 14. Bifurcation~ The party or parties Intend to file a motion for an order blfurcsbng, severing, or coordinating the following tssues or causes of action (specify moving perfy, type of motion, and reasons)i 15. Other motions ~ The party or parties expem to file the following mobons before trial (specify moving party, type of motion, and issuesJ: 16. Discovery a. ~ The party or parties have completed afi discovery. b. ~x The fofiowlng discovery wfil be completed by the date specified (dsscn'be e/I enlicipeled discoveryJ: Descriotion Plaintiff Plaintiff Plaintiff Deposifion of PMK and relevant witnesses First Set of Wriben Discovery Second Set of Written Discovery per the CCP per the CCP per the Ccp c. ~ The following discovery issues, including issues regarding the discovery of electronically stored information, are anticipated (specify): cM.110slov 2 111,2011I CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Poso ~ oi 0 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 44 of 58 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER. MEGAN RUSH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT; CHECKR,INC ets( CASE NUMBER CGC-20-585331 CM-110 17. Economic gtigation a. ~ This is a limited civil case (i.e., the amount demanded is $25,000 or less) and the economic litigation procedures in Code of Civil Procedure sections 90-98 will apply to this case. b. ~ This is a limited dvg case and a motion to withdraw the case from the economic litigation procedures or for additional discovery will be filed (if checked, explain specMcegy why economic litigation procedures relating lo discovery or tnal should nol apply to this case): 18. Other issues~ The party or parsee request that the fogowlng additional matters be considered or determined at the case management conference (specifyj: 19. Meet and confer e. ~ The party or parties have met and conferred with all parties on ag subjects required by rule 3.724 of the Cagfomia Rules of Court (if noi, explainj: On November 19, 2020 this Court condnued the Case Management Conference set for December 9, 2020 to January 20, 2021. b. ~ Afler meeting and conferring as required by rule 3.724 of the Cagfomls Rules of Court, the parties agree on the following (speci fyjr 20. Total number of pages attached (if anyj: 1 I am completely famglar with this case and will be fully prepared to discuss the status of discovery snd alternative dispute resolution, as well as other issues raised by this statement, and wgl possess the authority to enter into stipulations on these Issues at the time of the case management conference, Including the written authority of the parly where required. Date: December 8, 2020 Devin H. Fok, Esq. (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (sIGNATURE exPARTY oR ATTCRNEY) (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY(~ Addihonal signatures are attached. CMIID(ea 2 IYI,DDII] CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 45 of 58 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 46 of 58 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 400 MCALLISTER STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-4514 MEGAN RUSH Case Management Department 610 Case Management Order PLAINTIFF (S) VS. NO. CGC-20-585331 CHECKR, INC. et al Order To Show Cause DEFENDANT (S) TO: PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL AND/OR SELF-REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF(S) The Jan-20-2021 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is canceled. YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO APPEAR in Department 610 on Mar-09-2021 at 10:30 am, pursuant to Local Rule 3.0 C to show cause why this action should not be dismissed or why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to: file proof of service and obtain answer(s) or enter default(s) against defendant(s) WHOLESALE SCREENING INC. as to first amended complaint. CRC 3.110(i) requires that responsive papers to an order to show cause must be filed and served at least 5 calendar days before the hearing. However, it would facilitate the issuance of a case management order prior to the Order to Show Cause hearing if the Response to Order to Show Cause is filed and served twenty (20) days before the Order to Show Cause hearing. PLAINTIFF(S) must serve a copy of this notice on all parties not listed on the attached proof of service within five (5) days of the date of this order. You may call (415) 551-4000 after 12:00 noon the day before the hearing to determine whether your compliance has taken the order to show cause off calendar. DATED: JAN-05-2021 GARRETT L. WONG JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Order To Show Cause Form 000001 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 47 of 58 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL I, the undersigned, certify that I am an employee of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco and not a party to the above-entitled cause and that on JAN-05-2021 I served the attached Order To Show Cause by placing a copy thereof in an envelope addressed to all parties to this action as listed below. I then placed the envelope in the outgoing mail at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, on the date indicated above for collection, sealing of the envelope, attachment of required prepaid postage, and mailing on that date, following standard court practice. Dated : JAN-05-2021 By: VANESSA WU ROD M FLIEGEL (168289) LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 333 BUSH STREET, 34TH FLR. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 DEVIN FOK (256599) DHF LAW, PC 16 NORTH MARENGO AVENUE SUITE 403 PASADENA, CA 91101 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL Page 1 of 1 Form 000001 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 48 of 58 ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 01/06/2021 Clerk of the Court BY: VANESSA WU Deputy Clerk Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 49 of 58 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 50 of 58 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 51 of 58 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 52 of 58 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: MEGAN RUSH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: CHECKR, INC. et al CASE NUMBER: CGC-20-585331 CM-110 17. Economic litigation a. D This is a limited civil case (i.e., the amount demanded is $25,000 or less) and the economic litigation procedures in Code of Civil Procedure sections 90-98 will apply to this case. b. D This is a limited civil case and a motion to with�raw the case from t_he.�o�omic litiga tion pro�dures �r for additio�al discovery will be filed (if checked, explain spec1ficalfy why economic fit1gat1on procedures relating to discovery or tnal should not apply to this case): 18. Other issues D The party or parties request that the following additional matters be considered or determined at the case management conference (specify): 19. Meet and confer a. CJ The party or parties have met and conferred with all parties on all subjects required by rule 3. 724 of the California Rules of Court (if not, explain): On November 19, 2020 this Court continued the Case Management Conference set for December 9, 2020 to January 20, 2021. b. CJ After meeting and conferring as required by rule 3. 724 of the California Rules of Court, the parties agree on the following (specify): 20. Total number of pages attached (if any): _1 ____ _ I am completely familiar with this case and will be fully prepared to discuss the status of discovery and alternative dispute resolution, as well as other issues raised by this statement, and will possess the authority to enter into stipulations on these issues at the time of the case management conference, including the written authority of the party where required. Date: January 6, 2020 Devin H. Fok, Esq. (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) CM-110(Rev. July 1, 2011) ► (SIGNATU�ARTY OR ATTORNEY) ► (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY) D Additional signatures are attached. CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Page 5 of 5 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 53 of 58 - 1 - Attachment 4B to Case Management Statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Devin Fok (SBN #256599) devin@devinfoklaw.com DHF Law, PC 16 N. Marengo Ave. Suite 403 Pasadena, CA 91101 Ph: (888) 651-6411 Fax: (818) 484-2023 Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY MEGAN RUSH, as an individual, Plaintiff(s), vs. CHECKR, INC., WHOLESALE SCREENING INC., and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: CGC-20-585331 ATTACHMENT 4B TO CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Plaintiff, Megan Rush (hereafter “Plaintiff”), files her attachment 4B to case management statement filed on January 6th, 2021 and alleges as follows: ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 01/07/2021 Clerk of the Court BY: CAROL BALISTRERI Deputy Clerk Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 54 of 58 - 2 - Attachment 4B to Case Management Statement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ATTACHMENT 4b TO CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Plaintiff reached a settlement with Defendant Checkr on all her individual causes of action against it. There remains a class action allegation for violation of 15 USC section 1681k(a)(2) against Defendant Wholesale Screening Solutions LLC (hereinafter “WSS”) who is currently being served. Plaintiff and the putative class seek actual damages as well as statutory penalties against WSS for its failure to comply with Federal background check laws by selling consumer criminal history information where there is no final disposition of a criminal charge and with no future court date stated. As a result, an erroneous background check report disclosing a May 7, 2019 misdemeanor theft charge stating that Plaintiff has a warrant for her arrest was issued. In fact, the warrant was recalled on November 12, 2019 and the case was dismissed on the same day. Plaintiff was never prosecuted for the crime. As a result, Plaintiff was never been hired by her prospective employer. Dated: January 7, 2021 DHF LAW, PC By: /S/ Devin H. Fok Devin Fok Attorney for Plaintiff Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 55 of 58 POS-010 AfIORNEY OR PARIY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): Devin Fok, 256599 DHF Law, P.C. 234 E. Colorado Blvd,, Bth Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 TELEPHoNE No.: 31 0-430-9933 ATToRNEY FoR frvame: Petitionef FOR COURT USE ONLY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Superior Court of California, San Francisco County 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 PLAINTIFF/PETITIoNER: Megan RUSh, an individUal DEFENDANT/RESpoNDENT: Wholesale Screening Solutions, LLC, et al CASE NUMBER: cGc-20-585331 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS Ref. No. or File No.: 1 . At the time of service I was a citizen of the United States, at least 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 2, I served copies of: Summons, INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3 3. a. Party served: Wholesale SCreening Solutions, LLC b. Person Served: Rene Nordquist - Authorized Agent - Person Authorized to Accept Service of Process 4. Address where the partywas served: 100 ShoCkOe Slip, 2nd FIOOr Richmond, V423219 5. I served the party a. by personal service, I personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to receive service of process for the party (1) on (date): 01lO7 12021 6. The "Notice to the Person Served" (on the summons) was completed as follows: d. on behalf of: Wholesale Screeninq Solutions, LLC under: Other: Limited Liability Company 7. Person who served papers (2) at (time): 1:36PM a. Name: Michael Beasley b. Address: One Legal - P-000618-Sonoma '1400 North McDowell Blvd, Ste 300 Petaluma, CA 94954 c. Telephone number: 415491-0606 d. The fee for service was: g 145.00 elam: (1) Not a registered California process seryer. 8. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct Date: QJIQ$llQ)l Michael Beaslev lNAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED PAPERS) Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Judicial Council of Calilornia POS-01 0 [Rev. Jan '!, 2007] Code of Civil Proc€dure, S 417.10 oL# 15686645 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 01/13/2021 Clerk of the Court BY: YOLANDA TABO-RAMIREZ Deputy Clerk Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 56 of 58 CIV-110 STATE BAR NO: 256599 FOR COURT 1/U OHL Y ATTORNEY OR PARTY WffHOVT ATTOfUEY: NAME: Devin H. Fok FIRM NAME: OHF Law sTREET ADORESS: 16 N. Marengo Ave. Suite 403 STATE: CA ZPCOOE: 91101 CITY: Pasadena FAX NO.: (818) 484-2023 TELEPHONE NO.: (888) 651-6411 E-MAIL AOORESS: devin@devinfoklaw.com ATTORNEY FOR(,.,,._): Megan Rush SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY Of SAN FRANCISCO sTREET AOORESS: 400 McAltister St. MAILING ADORESS: 400 McAllister St. c1rvANDZPCOOE: San Francisco, CA94102 BRANCH NAME: Civic Center Courthouse Plaintiff/Petitioner. Megan Rush Defendant/Respondent: Civic Center Courthouse CASE NUMBER: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL CGC-20-585331 A conformed copy wtll not be returned by the clerk unless a method of return Is provided wtth the document. This form may not be used for dlsmlssal of a derivative action or a clan action or of any party or cause of action in a clan action. (Cal. Rule• of Court, rules 3.760 and 3.770.) 1. TO THE CLERK: Please dismiss this action as follows: a. (1) 00 With prejudice (2) D Without prejudice b. (1) IT] Complaint (2) 0 Petition (3) D Cross-complaint filed by (name): (4) D Cross-complaint filed by (name): (5) D Entire action of all parties and all causes of action (6) IT] Other (specify):* 2. (Complete in all cases except family law cases.) on {date): on (dale): The court D did 0 did not waive oourt fees and costs for a party in this case. (This information may be obtained from the cleric. ff court fees and costs wem waived, the declaration on the back of this form must be completed). Date:01-21-21 Devin H. Fok (TYPE OR l'f{INT NAME OF w ATTORNEY D PMTY WITHOUT ATT�EY} •If dlllmlssal requested Is of apecffled parties only of epecfflad cauaM of action orly. « or epecllled 1701111-C011'1pru an1y, so ate n Identify the parties. - of action, or c:rosa-<:omplails to be dillmlaed. Attorney or party without attomey for: m Plaintiff/Petitioner D Defendant/Respondent D Cross Complainant 3. TO THE CLERK: Consent to the above dismissal is hereby given.- Date: 01-21-21 Devin H. Fok ► (TYPEORPRINTNAMEOF w ATTORNEY D PARTYWITHOUTATTORNEY} " If a CtOll&-Q)fflplaint- or Responea (Famlly Law) Meking affirmative Attorney or party without attorney for. relief- le on tie, the attorney for� (raepondeot) muet sign 1his � If required by Coda or CMI Procedure ..:tlofl 581 (I) or O). m Plaintiff/Petitioner D Defendant/Respondent D Cross Complainant (To be completed by cleric) 4. D Dismissal entered as requested on (date): 5 D Dismissal entered on (date): as to only (name): 6. D Dismissal not entered as requested for the following reasons (specify): 7. a. D Attorney or party without attorney notified on (date): b. D Attorney or party without attorney not notified. Filing party failed to provide Date: D a copy to be conformed CJ means to return conformed copy Clerk, by Form Adopled fot Mandmry U.. Judlciel Council of� CIV-110 {Rr,. Jen. 1, 2013] REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL Deputy Com of CMI Plocedln, § 5111 et aeq.; Gov. Com, § 88837(ct. Cal. RulN of Court. rui. 3. 1390 -.oourCs.c..p All causes of action against Checkr, Inc. only ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 01/22/2021 Clerk of the Court BY: VANESSA WU Deputy Clerk DISMISSAL ENTERED 01/22/2021 By: VANESSA WU Deputy Clerk Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 57 of 58 Case 3:21-cv-00915 Document 1 Filed 02/05/21 Page 58 of 58 TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of CA. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 800, San Francisco, California 94111. On February 5, 2021, I served the following document(s) described as: DEFENDANT WHOLESALE SCREENING SOLUTIONS LLC’S NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT On the parties or attorneys for parties in this action who are identified on the attached service list, using the following means of service: XX BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: By placing a true copy(ies) thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s) or package(s) as designated by Federal Express, addressed as above, and depositing said envelope(s) or package(s), with delivery fees provided for, in a box regularly maintained by Federal Express at Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 800, San Francisco, California 94111 XX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I caused the above-entitled document to be served electronically xx BY FILE&SERVE XPRESS:- I ELECTRONICALLY SERVED THE ABOVE- REFERENCED DOCUMENT(S) THROUGH FILE&SERVE XPRESS TO THE PARTIES OR THEIR COUNSEL AS LISTED ON THE SERVICE LIST ATTACHED HEREWITH. THIS SERVICE COMPLIES WITH CCP 1013(A) AND CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 2.251(I)(1) Devin H. Fok DHF Law 16 N. Marengo Ave. Suite 403 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (888) 651-6411 Email: devin@devinfoklaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff: Megan Rush I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. T R O U T M A N P E P P E R H A M IL T O N S A N D E R S L L P T h re e E m b a rc a d e ro C e n te r S u it e 8 0 0 S a n F ra n c is c o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 - 2 - PROOF OF SERVICE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Executed on February 5, 2021 at San Francisco, CA. Evelyn Standart 113187004v1