Melo v. Zumper, Inc.
Decision Date | 27 January 2020 |
Docket Number | Civil No. 3:19cv621 (DJN) |
Citation | Melo v. Zumper, Inc., 439 F.Supp.3d 683 (E.D. Va. 2020) |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Parties | Ernest MELO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ZUMPER, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Leonard Anthony Bennett, Consumer Litigation Associates, Newport News, VA, Matthew James Erausquin, Tara Boen Keller, Consumer LitIgation Associates PC, Alexandria, VA, for Plaintiff.
Craig Thomas Merritt, Lauren Elizabeth Fisher White, Christian & Barton LLP, Richmond, VA, John Andrew Shope, Pro Hac Vice, Kevin James Conroy, Pro Hac Vice, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA, Esther Slater McDonald, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant.
PlaintiffErnest Melo("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this action against Zumper, Inc.("Zumper") and Trade House Data ("Trade House")(collectively, "Defendants"), alleging various violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq.This matter comes before the Court on Zumper's Motion to Transfer Venue and to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration (ECF No. 11) and Trade House's Joinder in Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration (ECF No. 34).For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS Zumper's Motion to Transfer Venue and to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration (ECF No. 11) and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Trade House's Joinder in Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration (ECF No. 34).
I.BACKGROUND
Zumper is a corporation organized under Delaware law with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California.(Affidavit of Brian Coyne in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. to Transfer Venue and to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration ("Coyne Aff.")(ECF No. 12-1) ¶ 2.)The company operates a real estate website that allows individuals throughout the United States and Canada to search for rental apartments and to connect with landlords and realtors.(CoyneAff. ¶ 2.)Through the website, potential renters may request that Zumper gather credit, criminal and eviction records from third-party sources and transmit those records to landlords and realtors for evaluation.(CoyneAff. ¶ 2.)Further, through the website, landlords can communicate with and evaluate prospective tenants.(CoyneAff. ¶ 2.)Trade House is a corporation headquartered in Sandy, Utah.(Compl. ¶ 10.)Plaintiff alleges that Trade House operates as a consumer reporting agency and regularly assembles, evaluates and publishes consumer information and reports to third parties.(Compl. ¶ 11.)
In August 2017, Plaintiff, a resident of Virginia, applied to rent a condominium.(Compl. ¶¶ 6, 13.)At the time, the leasing agent "requested Plaintiff's consumer report through Zumper's online tenant screening resource."(Compl. ¶¶ 13-14.)Zumper's records show that on August 28, 2017, a realtor sent Plaintiff a request via Zumper to "create a Credit Report and to run a background screen."(CoyneAff. ¶ 6.)Zumper's internal records reveal that "Ernest Martin de Jesus Melo" created a Zumper account on August 28, 2017.
(CoyneAff. ¶ 20).Plaintiff subsequently ordered and paid fifty dollars for Zumper to send credit, criminal and eviction reports to his prospective landlord.(CoyneAff. ¶ 32.)
Zumper then obtained Plaintiff's requested records from Trade House.(Compl. ¶ 15).Zumper shared with the prospective landlord a consumer report that, according to Plaintiff, included derogatory reports that did not belong to him.(Compl. ¶¶ 16-17.)Plaintiff alleges that due to Zumper's failure to maintain procedures to ensure maximum accuracy, Zumper incorrectly reported Plaintiff's father's information instead of his own.(Compl. 17-18.)Because of this error, Plaintiff states that he could not secure the rental property and remained further deterred from applying for other rental properties because of the inaccurate records.(Compl. ¶ 19.)Finally, following this incident, Plaintiff reports requesting a copy of his consumer file; however, Plaintiff asserts, Zumper did not respond to the request.(Compl. 20-21.)
According to Zumper's records, Plaintiff used a Samsung Galaxy S8 running the Google Chrome web browser to create his Zumper account.(CoyneAff. ¶ 24.)When a prospective user, like Plaintiff, receives a request from a landlord, the user clicks a blue "Get Started" button that takes him to a website to create his account.(CoyneAff. ¶¶ 8-10.)According to Zumper records, this website had a pink "Create an Account" button.(CoyneAff. ¶ 10.)Clicking this button produces a pop-up window that prompts a user to enter a name and password.(CoyneAff. ¶ 10.)A rendition of what the website would have looked like to a user creating an account in August 2017 appears below.1
(Coyne Aff.at 5.)Below the "Create Account" button, a prospective user sees the following language without having to scroll down: "By creating a Zumper account you indicate your acceptance of our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy."(CoyneAff. ¶ 13.)Zumper asserts that a prospective user cannot create an account without entering the required information and affirmatively clicking the blue "Create Account" button.(CoyneAff. ¶ 12.)
The words "Terms and Conditions" and "Privacy Policy" appeared in blue to indicate that they were hyperlinks.(CoyneAff. ¶ 14.)Clicking on the "Terms and Conditions" hyperlink took a user to Zumper's Terms of Use.(CoyneAff. ¶ 15.)According to Zumper, the Terms of Use as they existed on August 28, 2017, the day that Plaintiff created his account, included an agreement to binding arbitration and, to the extent that the claims were not arbitrable, exclusive venue in the federal or state courts in San Francisco.(CoyneAff. ¶ 27;Ex. D to Coyne Aff. (the "Agreement")(ECF No. 12-5) at 16-17.)Section 14 of the Agreement, entitled "Arbitration and Dispute Resolution," provided:
On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed this Complaint (ECF No. 1) against Defendants, setting forth three claims for relief.In Count I, Plaintiff alleges that Trade House violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to "maintain reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the consumer credit information it reported."(Compl. ¶ 24.)Similarly, in Count II, Plaintiff alleges that Zumper violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to "maintain reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the consumer credit information it reported."(Compl. ¶ 28.)
Finally, in Count III, Plaintiff asserts that Zumper violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681g when it failed to provide Plaintiff a response to his written request for his consumer file, failed to disclose the "source of the judgment information contained in his consumer report" and failed to "identify each person that procured the Plaintiff's report during the preceding [one]-year period."(Compl. ¶ 32.)Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Plaintiff brings Count III on behalf of himself and a putative class defined as:
All natural persons residing in the United States (a) who requested their consumer disclosure from Zumper, (b) within the two year period preceding the filing of this action and during its pendency, and (c) to whom Zumper failed to provide a response that included the source of the judgment information that appeared in the consumer's file.
(Compl. ¶ 33.)Under all three counts, Plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to recover actual damages, statutory damages and punitive damages, in addition to costs and attorneys' fees.(Compl. ¶¶ 26, 30, 41.)
In response to Plaintiff's Complaint, on September 24, 2019, Zumper filed a Motion to Transfer Venue and to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration.(ECF No. 11).Zumper moves to transfer this entire action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.(Def. Zumper, Inc.'s Mem. in Supp. of its Mot. to Transfer Venue and to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration ("Def.'s Mem.")(ECF No. 12)at 1.)Zumper first asserts that Plaintiff agreed to arbitration or to exclusive venue in the Northern District of California when he created an account and accepted the terms of the Agreement.(Def.'s Mem.at 1.)...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Joshua M. v. Barr
... ... Jadhav , 555 F.3d 337, 347 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc. , 545 U.S. 546, 552, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005) ). This Court must, as a result, ... ...
-
Beard v. John Hiester Chevrolet, LLC
..."while the relevant terminology continues to evolve, the Court's inquiry into contract formation does not."Melo v. Zumper, Inc., 439 F. Supp. 3d 683, 696 n.8 (E.D. Va. 2020) (cleaned up). ...
-
Car-Freshner Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
... ... competent to testify on the matters stated." FED. R ... CIV. P. 56(c)(4) (emphasis added); cf. Melo v. Zumper, ... Inc. , 439 F.Supp.3d 683, 693, n.4 (E.D. Va. 2020) ... (collecting cases) ("Rule 56(c)(4) acts as the standard ... ...
-
Babcock v. Neutron Holdings, Inc.
..."sign-in wrap" agreement gave the user sufficient notice of the terms and conditions. See Melo v. Zumper, Inc. , Case No. 3:19CV621 (DJN), 439 F. Supp. 3d 683, 699–700 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2020) (applying Virginia law and ruling plaintiff had sufficient notice of terms and conditions where "[......