Curry v. Trans Union, LLC

Decision Date26 April 2017
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 3:16cv824 (MHL)
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
PartiesALVIN CURRY, Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, et al., Defendants.
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION On Defendant Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer & Defendant I.Q. Data International, Inc.'s Motion to Transfer Venue

This matter comes before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for a Report and Recommendation on Defendant Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue, or in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue ("Motion to Dismiss or Transfer") (ECF No. 22) and Defendant I.Q. Data International, Inc.'s Motion to Transfer Venue ("Motion to Transfer") (ECF No. 35). (Orders Referring Motions, ECF Nos. 34, 37.) The action primarily arises from Plaintiff Alvin Curry's termination of a residential lease of property located in the state of Washington and Defendants Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC ("Greystar")'s and I.Q. Data International, Inc. ("I.Q. Data")'s alleged attempts to collect rents from Plaintiff thereafter.

The first issue before the Court is whether it has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Greystar. Stemming from this issue is the related question of whether the Eastern District of Virginia is the proper venue for this action. Greystar asserts that it has no contacts with Virginia sufficient to give rise to personal jurisdiction in this action, and further that, since there is no personal jurisdiction over Greystar in Virginia and the acts and omissions complained of did not occur in Virginia, venue in this District is improper. I.Q. Data argues that, assuming arguendo that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia, the Court should nevertheless transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice.

Plaintiff argues that Greystar does have sufficient contacts with Virginia to support personal jurisdiction in this action and Greystar's Motion to Dismiss should be denied. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the Court deny Greystar's Motion without prejudice so that Plaintiff may conduct certain jurisdictional discovery to properly combat Greystar's jurisdictional challenge. Regarding I.Q. Data's Motion to Transfer, Plaintiff argues that 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) supports venue in the Eastern District of Virginia and not in the Western District of Washington. Plaintiff further argues that neither the interests of justice nor the convenience of the parties compels such a transfer, and therefore Plaintiff's choice of venue should be afforded the substantial weight it is due.

Having considered the parties' pleadings and proffers, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that there is no basis for personal jurisdiction over Defendant Greystar in this case. The Court additionally finds that jurisdictional discovery would not give rise to any more useful information or otherwise enable Plaintiff to establish some ground for this Court's assertion of jurisdiction over Greystar, and therefore such discovery is unnecessary. Finally, the Court finds that venue is more appropriate in the Western District of Washington and that transfer to that District serves the interests of justice and the judicial economy. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant Greystar's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue, or in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 22) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, that Defendant I.Q. Data's Motion to TransferVenue (ECF No. 35) be GRANTED, and that the action be TRANSFERRED to the Western District of Washington.

I. BACKGROUND

On or about July 20, 2010, Plaintiff entered into a lease for the rental of an apartment in Lakewood, Washington (the "Lakewood Lease"). (Compl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 1.) During the timeframe implicated by this lawsuit, the apartment was owned by Lakewood Project, LLC1 and managed by Riverstone Residential West, LLC ("Riverstone West"). (Mem. Supp. Greystar Mot. Dismiss or Transfer ("Greystar Mem. Supp.") Exs. 1, 2, ECF No. 24.) In 2014, following Defendant Greystar's acquisition of Riverstone West's parent company, Riverstone West became Greystar RS West, LLC, a subsidiary of Greystar. (Greystar Mem. Supp. 1; Aff. Matthew White 2, ECF No. 33-1.)

At the time Plaintiff entered into the Lakewood Lease in 2010 he was an active duty "servicemember" as defined by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ("SCRA"), 50 U.S.C. §§ 3901, et seq., and he maintained this status until April 22, 2015. (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12, 54.) On or about August 30, 2010, Plaintiff received military orders for a permanent change of station ("PCS") to Ft. Eustis, Virginia,2 effective December 10, 2010. (Id. ¶ 13; PL Mem. Opp. I.Q. Data's Mot. Transfer ("Pl. Mem. Opp. Transfer") 2, ECF No. 38.) Accordingly, on or about September 21, 2010, Plaintiff provided written notice to Greystar3 conveying his desire toterminate his lease and including a copy of his PCS orders, pursuant to the SCRA. (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 57.) Plaintiff alleges that, notwithstanding this notice, Greystar billed Plaintiff for rents he was not obligated to pay and subsequently hired I.Q. Data to initiate collection activities against Plaintiff, all in violation of the SCRA. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 58.) Plaintiff further alleges that I.Q. Data wrongfully reported a debt to consumer reporting agencies on account of the unpaid rents, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq., and otherwise engaged in practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 42-52.) As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff claims damages in the form of lost employment, lost credit opportunities, harm to credit reputation and score, and emotional distress. (Id. ¶ 17.)

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed his Complaint (ECF No. 1) in this Court on October 7, 2016. On December 6, 2016, after obtaining an extension from Judge Lauck, Greystar filed the instant Motion to Dismiss or Transfer and Memorandum in Support (ECF Nos. 22, 24), as well as its Answer to the Complaint (ECF No. 25). After receiving his own filing extension, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Greystar's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (ECF No. 32) on December 27, 2016. Greystar filed its Reply to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition (ECF No. 33) on December 30, 2016.

On January 18, 2017, Judge Lauck referred Greystar's Motion to Dismiss to the undersigned for Report and Recommendation. (Order Referring Motion, ECF No. 34.) Then, on February 24, 2017, I.Q. Data filed its own Motion to Transfer and a Memorandum in Support thereof (ECF Nos. 35, 36), which Judge Lauck similarly referred to the undersigned for Reportand Recommendation. (Order Referring Motion, ECF No. 37.) On March 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Memorandum in Opposition to Transfer (ECF No. 38). I.Q. Data did not file a reply.

In order to properly address an issue raised in Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Transfer, on March 22, 2017, the undersigned ordered Defendants Experian Information Solutions, LLC ("Experian"), Equifax Information Services, LLC ("Equifax"), and Trans Union LLC ("Trans Union") (collectively, "the CRA Defendants") to file supplemental briefing on the question of whether the CRA Defendants would be subject to personal jurisdiction in the Western District of Washington, were the present action to be transferred there. (Order Req'g Suppl. Briefing, ECF No. 39.) On March 31, 2017, Trans Union filed its supplemental brief (ECF No. 40), and on April 3, 2017, Experian filed its supplemental brief (ECF No. 41). Equifax has not filed anything in response to the Court's Order. Additionally, Plaintiff has declined to submit any responsive brief on the issue. The Court dispenses with oral argument on this and all other issues; despite certain parties' lack of response, the Court finds that the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and that oral argument will not aid in the decisional process. E.D. Va. Loc. Civ. R. 7(J). The time for any further briefing on the instant matters having passed, the motions are now ripe for review.

III. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

A defendant may raise lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense in a pre-answer motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). "When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff ultimately bears the burden of proving . . . the existence of jurisdiction over the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence." New Wellington Fin. Corp. v. Flagship Resort Dev. Corp., 416 F.3d 290, 294 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673, 676(4th Cir. 1989). However, when the court "addresses the question on the basis only of motion papers, supporting legal memoranda and the relevant allegations of a complaint, the burden on the plaintiff is simply to make a prima facie showing of a sufficient jurisdictional basis to survive the jurisdictional challenge." Id. (quoting Combs, 886 F.2d at 676) (further citing Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Rapid Am. Corp. (In re Celotex Corp.), 124 F.3d 619, 628 (4th Cir. 1997)). "Under such circumstances, courts 'must construe all relevant pleading allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, assume credibility, and draw the most favorable inferences for the existence of jurisdiction.'" Id. (quoting Combs, 886 F.2d at 676).

That being said, courts "are not required . . . to look solely to the plaintiff's proof in drawing [jurisdictional] inferences;" courts may consider a defendant's proffered proof, such as affidavits. Mylan Labs, Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 62 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Long v. Chevron Corp., ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT