United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS ELDER LIVING CONSTRUCTION'S AND FIRST ADVANTAGE CORPORATION'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF ## 39, 41)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.
In this action, Plaintiff Richard Rocheleau ("Rocheleau") asserts claims against Defendants Environmental Specialty Services, Inc. ("ESS"), First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. ("First Advantage"), and Elder Living Construction, LLC ("Elder Living") for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681, et seq. (the "FCRA"). First Advantage and Elder Living have now moved for summary judgment on the ground that Rocheleau's claims are barred by the FCRA's two-year statute-of-limitations. ( See ECF ## 39, 41.) For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS First Advantage's and Elder Living's motions.
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 15, 2011, Elder Living ordered a background report on Rocheleau from LexisNexis Screening Solutions, Inc. ("LexisNexis"), First Advantage's predecessor. ( See Rocheleau Dep., ECF #42-2 at 61, Pg. ID 355; see also Declaration of First Advantage Vice President of Operations Matthew B. O'Connor, ECF #42-1 at ¶8.) It is unclear from the record why Elder Living ordered the report.
On September 16, 2011, LexisNexis sent Rocheleau "a notice informing him that it was reporting public record information about him to Elder Living." (O'Connor Decl. at ¶11; see also the "September 16 Notice, " ECF #41-3, Pg. ID 322.) It appears that LexisNexis made the background report on Rochealeau available to Elder Living at this same time. ( See O'Connor Decl. at ¶11.)
On September 19, 2011, LexisNexis sent Rocheleau a second notice informing him that information in the background report "may adversely affect [his] employment status with Lowe's, " with which Rocheleau may have applied for a job. (The "September 19 Notice, " ECF #41-5, Pg. ID 328.)
Rocheleau received the September 16 and 19 Notices shortly after the date they were mailed in mid-September 2011. ( See Rocheleau Dep. at 26-27, Pg. ID 345-346; 70-71, Pg. ID 364-365.) He also received a copy of the background report at this same time. ( See the September 16 and 19 Notices, ECF #41-3, Pg. ID 322 and ECF #41-5, Pg. ID 328.) Rocheleau did not dispute the accuracy or completeness of the background report, but he did object to the report being prepared and disseminated without his permission. Rocheleau thus contacted LexisNexis multiple times in September 2011 to say he had not authorized the background report and that he was "not happy that [it had] been done." (Id. at 71-72, Pg. ID 365-366.) According to First Advantage, "LexisNexis has [never] received a dispute from Mr. Rocheleau concerning the accuracy of the background report prepared on him for Elder Living." (O'Connor Decl. at ¶10.)
On September 26, 2011, LexisNexis sent Rocheleau another notice informing him that Lowe's had decided not to hire him, and that this decision "was based in whole or in part on information about [him] contained in the [background report]." (The "September 26 Notice, " ECF #41-6, Pg. ID 329.) Rocheleau does not dispute that he received the September 26 Notice in late-September 2011. ( See Rocheleau Dep. at 78, Pg. ID 372.)
On November 25, 2013, more than two years after Rocheleau first learned about the background report and the possibility that information in the report may have contributed to Lowe's decision not to hire him, Rocheleau filed this action alleging that the Defendants violated the FCRA. ( See Complaint, ECF #1.) Rocheleau thereafter filed an Amended Complaint ( see ECF #5) and a Second Amended Complaint ( see ECF #9) - both of which alleged violations of the FCRA. First Advantage and Elder Living now move for summary judgment, primarily on the ground that Rocheleau failed to file this action before the applicable statute-of-limitations expired. ( See ECF ## 39, 41.) The Court heard oral argument on April 13, 2015.
GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD
A movant is entitled to summary judgment when it "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact...." U.S. SEC v. Sierra Brokerage Services, Inc., 712 F.3d 321, 326-27 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986)) (quotations omitted). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving party's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for [that party]." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
When reviewing the record, "the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor." Id. Indeed, "[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drafting of legitimate inferences ...