Dormoy v. HireRight, LLC

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 EDWIN AGUSTIN DORMOY, Case No. 23-cv-02511-EMC

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION

9 v. TO DISMISS

10 HIRERIGHT, LLC, et al., Docket No. 20

11 Defendants.

12

13

14 Plaintiff Edwin Agustin Dormoy is a former driver for Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) and Uber

15 Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”). He has filed suit against Lyft and Uber, as well as HireRight, LLC

16 (“HireRight”) (collectively, “Defendants”), because his rideshare accounts were deactivated, and

17 there was no response to his requests for information relating to the account suspensions.

18 HireRight is an employment screening company that provides employment background reports to

19 employers. Plaintiff claims HireRight’s failure to respond to his request for a copy of his

20 background screening file, violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §

21 1681 et seq., and the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”), Cal.

22 Civ. Code § 1786.2 et seq.

23 HireRight moves to dismiss the complaint based on (1) lack of personal jurisdiction and

24 (2) failure to state a claim for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), (6). With respect to the

25 jurisdictional challenge, Plaintiff asks for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery; in the

26 alternative, Plaintiff requests a transfer of the claims against HireRight to a different district court

27 (either in Tennessee or Oklahoma). The Court held a noticed hearing on the motion on July 27,

1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that personal jurisdiction is lacking over

2 HireRight and denies Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery. However, in lieu of

3 dismissal, the Court shall sever the claims against HireRight and transfer them to the Middle

4 District of Tennessee. Because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over HireRight, it does not

5 address HireRight’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief.

6 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

7 A. Complaint

8 In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows. Plaintiff is a resident of Philadelphia,

9 Pennsylvania. Compl. ¶ 15. Plaintiff was a driver for the rideshare companies Lyft and Uber

10 before both his accounts were suspended. In or about February 2021, Plaintiff’s account with Lyft

11 was deactivated. Id. ¶ 2. A few months later, in or about April 2021, Uber requested a

12 background screening report on Plaintiff from HireRight (an employment screening company). Id.

13 ¶ 3. In the report, HireRight alerted Uber that “Lyft, Inc. informed HireRight that [Plaintiff] is not

14 currently eligible to use its platform due to safety-related reports.” Id. ¶ 4, Ex. 1. Due to this

15 background report, Plaintiff’s Uber driver account was deactivated in April 2021. Id. ¶ 5. As a

16 “direct result” of this report, “Plaintiff has lost two sources of income.” Id. ¶ 7.

17 Approximately a year later, in March 2022, Plaintiff sent to HireRight a request for

18 information, asking to obtain a copy of the “full file” of his original background check report.

19 Plaintiff sent his request to a HireRight office located in Irvine, California.1 Id. ¶¶ 8, 34. Certified

20 mail tracking showed the request as “delivered” on March 14, 2022. Id. ¶ 35. In spite of such,

21 HireRight has never produced the employment background check report that resulted in Plaintiff’s

22 Uber account suspension. Id. ¶ 9.

23 Based on, inter alia, the above allegations, Plaintiff has asserted six claims for relief. For

24 purposes of the pending motion, the Court need only concern itself with Count 3, which is the sole

25

1 Attached to Plaintiff’s complaint as Exhibit 1 is what appears to be the report that HireRight

26

gave to Uber. The front page of the report includes a notice to California consumers, instructing

that, “If you would like additional information regarding your disclosure rights, you can request

27

this information from HireRight by email . . . , by telephone . . . or by mail.” Compl., Ex. 1

1 claim pled against HireRight. Id. ¶¶ 23-52. In Count 3, Plaintiff alleges that HireRight, a

2 consumer reporting agency, violated its statutory duty under both federal and state law to respond

3 to requests for copies of consumer files. Id. ¶¶ 33–37. Specifically, HireRight violated §

4 1681g(a)(2)2 of the FCRA and §§ 1786.103 and 1786.224 of the California ICRAA. Id. ¶¶ 15–27.

5 B. Evidence re Personal Jurisdiction

6 As noted above, HireRight has moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for

7 failure to state a claim for relief. In support of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal

8 jurisdiction, HireRight has submitted evidence.5 In contrast, Plaintiff has failed to submit any

9 evidence. The Court briefly addresses the evidence provided by HireRight.

10 “HireRight is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware.” Piper

11 Decl. ¶ 5. Apparently, HireRight once maintained its headquarters in Irvine, California. Counsel

12 for HireRight made this express representation at the hearing on the motion to dismiss. While the

13 Supplemental Vetter Declaration, submitted by HireRight after the hearing on the motion to

14 dismiss, does not explicitly state such, it effectively confirms as much. Docket 46-1 (“Supp.

15 Vetter Decl.”) ¶ 10 (testifying that “HireRight operations have been centered and directed from

16 states other than California since approximately 2019”) (emphasis added). HireRight’s current

17 headquarters and principal place of business are in Nashville, Tennessee. Piper Decl. ¶ 5; see also

18 id. ¶¶ 8–9 (testifying that HireRight’s corporate office mailing address is in Nashville and that its

19

20

2 Section 1681g(a)(2) of the FCRA provides in relevant part that “[e]very consumer reporting

agency shall, upon request, and subject to section 610(a)(1) [i.e., § 1681h(a)(1)], clearly and

21

accurately disclose to the consumer: . . . (2) The sources of the information [in the consumer’s

file].” 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(2).

22

3 Section 1786.10 of the ICRAA provides, inter alia, that “[e]very investigative consumer

23

reporting agency shall, upon request and proper identification of any consumer, allow the

consumer to visually inspect all files maintained regarding the consumer at the time of the

24

request.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1786.10(a).

25

4 Section 1786.22 of the ICRAA directs, inter alia, that “[a]n investigative consumer reporting

agency shall supply files and information required under Section 1786.10 during normal business

26

hours and on reasonable notice.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1786.22(a).

27

5 For purposes of the pending motion, the Court considers both the evidence that HireRight

1 Board meeting usually occur in Nashville). HireRight began “purposefully establishing its

2 headquarters and principal place of business in Nashville in April 2021.” Supp. Vetter Decl. ¶ 10.

3 As of July 31, 2023, HireRight employs approximately 3,455 people globally. Id. ¶ 4.

4 Approximately 124 employees are based in Nashville. Id. ¶ 5. Another 237 employees are based

5 in Tulsa, Oklahoma, id. ¶ 6, and 67 are based in Irvine. Id. ¶ 7. Although HireRight continues to

6 have employees who are based in California, its Irvine office closed in March 2023 (the time when

7 Plaintiff filed his complaint). Id. ¶ 8. HireRight currently leases some suites in Newport Beach,

8 California, “for employees who need office or conference space to work while in California.” Id.

9 ¶ 9.

10 HireRight does not dispute that it is registered to do business in California, as alleged in

11 the complaint. Compl. ¶ 17. However, HireRight does challenge Plaintiff’s assertion that it was

12 headquartered in California. Plaintiff claims (without a declaration or any other specific evidence

13 to back up the claims) that HireRight has over 200 people at the Irvine office and that (based on an

14 “quick internet search”) “8 of Defendant’s top executives reside in Southern California.” P’s Opp.

15 at 6–7 (providing the names and titles of the employees at issue). HireRight directly disputes

16 these allegations and provides evidence in support. See generally Vetter Decl. In a declaration

17 from Sam Vetter, Senior Director of Human Resources, HireRight provides a comprehensive list

18 of executives and describes various states across the country wherein the company’s chief

19 executives and officers reside. Id. ¶¶ 4–14. HireRight acknowledges that some of its executives

20 reside in California, namely the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer, but

21 maintains that most of its executives reside in other states. This includes the Chief Executive

22 Officer (South Carolina), the General Counsel (Utah), the Chief Human Resources Officer

23 (Texas), the Chief Digital Officer (Connecticut), and the Chief Technology Officer and the Head

24 of Global Operations (both Tennessee). Id. Although some of the “executives” Plaintiff

25 conclusory identifies in his opposition may be high-level employees (e.g., Director of Business

26 Data Insights; Executive Vice President, Growth Verticals & Managing Director, Americas), they

27 do not appear to be high-level officers.

1 there. The California employees “includ[e] members of the finance and information technology

2 departments”; none are involved “with receiving, processing, or fulfilling file disclosure requests.”

3 Piper Decl. ¶ 16; see also id. ¶ 13 (stating that “[n]one of the functions of the Applicant Care

4 Team with respect to the receipt and fulfillment of file disclosure requests takes place, or took

5 place, in California”). In fact, the “vast majority” of HireRight’s operations team, responsible for

6 maintaining and implementing policies and procedures compliant with the FCRA, is located in

7 Nashville and Tulsa. Id. ¶¶ 6–7. In addition, HireRight’s Applicant Care Team, which is

8 “responsible for receiving and fulfilling file disclosure requests,” is located “primarily” in Tulsa.

9 Id. ¶ 11. According to HireRight, when Plaintiff mailed in his request for his consumer file to the

10 Irvine office in March 2022, this was contrary to its website which “instruct[ed] consumers to

11 send file disclosure requests to its Tulsa, Oklahoma office.” Id. ¶ 12.

12 II. DISCUSSION

13 A. Legal Standard

14 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a court must dismiss an action where it

15 does not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). “[T]he plaintiff

16 bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper.” Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs.,

17 Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011). However, “[w]here, as here, the defendant’s motion is

18 based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima

19 facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss.” Id. In addition,

20 “[u]ncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be taken as true, and factual disputes are

21 construed in the plaintiff’s favor.” Freestream Aircraft (Berm.) Ltd. v. Aero Law Grp., 905 F.3d

22 597, 602 (9th Cir. 2018). On the other hand, a district court “‘may not assume the truth of

23 allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit.’” Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd.,

24 11 F.4th 972, 978 (9th Cir. 2021).6

25 B. General Law on Personal Jurisdiction

26 As the Ninth Circuit has held:

27

1

Where, as here, there is no applicable federal statute governing

2 personal jurisdiction, the district court applies the law of the state in

which the district court sits. Because California's long-arm

3 jurisdictional statute is coextensive with federal due process

requirements, the jurisdictional analyses under state law and federal

4 due process are the same. For a court to exercise personal

jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, that defendant must have

5 at least "minimum contacts" with the relevant forum such that the

exercise of jurisdiction "does not offend traditional notions of fair

6 play and substantial justice."

7 Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800-01 (9th Cir. 2004).

8 “There are two categories of personal jurisdiction: (1) general jurisdiction and (2) specific

9 jurisdiction.” Freestream Aircraft (Berm.) Ltd. v. Aero Law Grp., 905 F.3d 597, 602 (9th Cir.

10 2018). In its motion to dismiss, HireRight maintains that both general and specific jurisdiction is

11 lacking in the case at bar. Notably, in his opposition, Plaintiff did not challenge HireRight’s

12 contention that there is no specific jurisdiction. Instead, he argues only that the Court has general

13 jurisdiction over HireRight. Because Plaintiff has failed to address the issue of specific

14 jurisdiction, in face of an express argument made by HireRight in its opening brief, the Court finds

15 that he has waived the right to assert specific jurisdiction. Cf. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

16 725, 733 (1993) (defining waiver as “the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known

17 right” in an analysis of Rule 52(b)); see also Madau v. Nat. Balance Pet Foods, Inc., No.

18 CV1504875SJOAJWX, 2015 WL 13917985, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2015) (holding that a

19 plaintiff who failed to address a defendant’s argument regarding the right to declaratory relief

20 under the FCRA effectively waived the issue).

21 C. General Jurisdiction

22 “Only a limited set of affiliations with a forum will render a defendant amenable to all-

23 purpose jurisdiction [i.e., general jurisdiction] there.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137

24 (2014). For a foreign corporation to be subject to a forum’s general jurisdiction, the corporation’s

25 affiliations with the state must be “so constant and pervasive ‘as to render [it] essentially at home

26 in the forum State.’” Id. (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S.

27 915, 919 (2011)). The Supreme Court has emphasized that a corporation’s place of incorporation

1 Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 924). “Only in an ‘exceptional case’ will general jurisdiction be available

2 anywhere else.” Martinez v. Aero Caribbean, 764 F.3d 1062, 1070 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting

3 Daimler, 571 U.S. at 139 n.19).

4 In Daimler, the Supreme Court held that, although a German corporation had a subsidiary

5 car dealership in California which maintained “substantial, continuous, and systematic course of

6 business” within the state, these contacts were not enough to render the parent corporation “at

7 home” for purposes of general jurisdiction. Daimler, 571 U.S. at 199. Although the corporation

8 benefitted from sizable sales within the state, the Argentinian plaintiffs’ claims of human rights

9 violations that occurred outside the United States had “nothing to do with anything that occurred

10 or had its principal impact in California.” Id. at 139. The Court declined to extend such an

11 “exorbitant exercise[] of all-purpose jurisdiction” because it “would scarcely permit out-of-state

12 defendants ‘to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to where that

13 conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.’” Id. (quoting Burger King Corp. v.

14 Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985)).

15 Subsequent to Daimler, the Ninth Circuit held in an unpublished decision, Johnson v. UBS

16 AG, 860 F. App’x 531 (9th Cir. 2021), that a Swiss corporation with a physical presence in

17 California fell short of being “essentially at home” in the state. Id. at 532. The defendant Swiss

18 corporation operated multiple branch offices, hired employees, and generated revenue in

19 California, but this was not enough to establish a prima facie showing of general personal

20 jurisdiction. Id.; see also Pestmaster Franchise Network, Inc. v. Mata, No. 16-CV-07268-EMC,

21 2017 WL 1956927, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2017) (holding defendant’s three California

22 franchises were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction); Garlough v. FCA US LLC,

23 No. 2:20-CV-01879-JAM-AC, 2021 WL 1534205, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2021) (holding

24 defendant’s two facilities in California were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction).

25 Plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie showing of general jurisdiction. Although

26 HireRight’s evidence reflects that the company has a number of employees in California and

27 maintains an office of some kind in Newport Beach, that in and of itself is insufficient to establish

1 The fact that HireRight once maintained headquarters in Irvine does not alter the analysis.

2 Plaintiff has claimed that HireRight violated his statutory rights when it failed to respond to a

3 request for information that he made in March 2022. By that time, HireRight no longer had its

4 headquarters in California – and had not maintained headquarters in the state for approximately

5 three years.7 See Supp. Vetter Decl. ¶ 10 (testifying that “HireRight operations have been

6 centered and directed from states other than California since approximately 2019”) (emphasis

7 added).

8 Plaintiff protests that HireRight’s principal place of business is in fact in Irvine,

9 California.8 But as indicated above, Plaintiff has no evidence to support that claim. At most, he

10 has made allegations in his opposition that he conducted an Internet search and found that a

11 number of high-level employees are based in Irvine. HireRight submitted concrete evidence to the

12 contrary – i.e., the Vetter Declaration – demonstrating that, inter alia, most corporate executives

13 and officers do not reside in California. While the Vetter Declaration was not submitted until

14 HireRight’s reply, Plaintiff could have tried to contest the Vetter Declaration at the hearing. He

15 did not do so; indeed, as noted above, he failed to appear for the hearing altogether.

16 As in Daimler, Plaintiff nor Defendant are residents of California, Plaintiff’s injury did not

17 occur in California, and Defendant’s activities and employees related to the action are located

18 outside California. Daimler, 571 U.S. at 139. HireRight’s place of incorporation and principal

19 place of business are in Delaware and Tennessee, respectively, and there are no “exceptional”

20

21

7 See Delphix Corp. v. Embarcadero Techs., Inc., 749 F. App'x 502, 505 (9th Cir. 2018) (“‘Courts

must examine the defendant’s contacts with the forum at the time of the events underlying the

22

dispute when determining whether they have jurisdiction.’”) (quoting Steel v. United States, 813

F.2d 1545, 1549 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d

23

560, 569-70 (2d Cir. 1996) (“In general jurisdiction cases, district courts should examine a

defendant’s contacts with the forum state over a period that is reasonable under the circumstances

24

– up to and including the date the suit was filed – to assess whether they satisfy the ‘continuous

and systematic’ standard. The determination of what period is reasonable in the context of each

25

case should be left to the court’s discretion.”).

26

8 Plaintiff argues California is HireRight’s principal place of business based on the “nerve center”

test which is used for diversity jurisdiction. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010)

27

(noting that a corporation’s “nerve center” is “where the corporation’s high level officers direct,

1 circumstances which warrant general jurisdiction elsewhere. Id. at 139 n.19. HireRight’s

2 Californian finance and IT departments do not create contacts “‘so substantial and of such a

3 nature’” as to justify the corporation being subject to general jurisdiction in the state. Id. at 127

4 (quoting Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 318). Such a determination would not allow national corporations

5 like HireRight “to structure their primary conduct with some minimum assurance” as to where

6 their multi-state conduct would render them liable to suit. Id. at 139. HireRight clearly operates

7 in a variety of states, with offices and executives spread across the nation, and it would be

8 improper to subject the corporation to general jurisdiction in California solely because it employs

9 people in the state. Id. at 139 n. 20 (“General jurisdiction . . . calls for an appraisal of a

10 corporation's activities in their entirety, nationwide and worldwide. A corporation that operates in

11 many places can scarcely be deemed at home in all of them.”). Plaintiff has failed to make a

12 prima facie showing of general jurisdiction over HireRight. See Johnson 860 F. App'x 532; see

13 also Pestmaster, 2017 WL 1956927, at *3; see also Garlough, 2021 WL 1534205, at *3. Finally,

14 although HireRight is registered to do business in the state, “California does not require

15 corporations to consent to general personal jurisdiction in that state when they . . . register to do

16 business.” AM Tr. v. UBS AG, 681 F. App'x 587, 588-89 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that a Swiss

17 corporation that was registered to do business in California was not subject to general

18 jurisdiction); compare Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 143 S. Ct. 2028, 2044 (2023) (plurality

19 decision upholding a Pennsylvania statute requiring that out-of-state defendants that register to do

20 business in the state consent to general personal jurisdiction; holding that this comports with the

21 due process clause).

22 D. Jurisdictional Discovery

23 A district court may appropriately grant jurisdictional discovery “‘where pertinent facts

24 bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of

25 the facts is necessary.’” Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation

26 omitted). By contrast, “‘a refusal [to grant discovery] is not an abuse of discretion when it is clear

27 that further discovery would not demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis for jurisdiction.’”

1 jurisdiction appears to be both attenuated and based on bare allegations in the face of specific

2 denials made by the defendants, the Court need not permit even limited discovery.” Pebble Beach

3 Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1160 (9th Cir. 2006).

4 In LNS Enterprises LLC v. Continental Motors, Inc., 22 F.4th 852 (9th Cir. 2022), the

5 Ninth Circuit addressed a request for jurisdictional discovery where the plaintiff asserted specific

6 jurisdiction. The defendant corporations “specifically rebutted [p]laintiffs’ unsupported

7 jurisdictional allegations and arguments” through attached declarations and affidavits from their

8 respective corporate officers explaining their lack of connection to the forum state. Id. at 858,

9 865. The court noted that “[p]laintiffs sought jurisdictional discovery ‘without providing any

10 affidavit or evidence substantiating their requests or describing with any precision how such

11 discovery could be helpful to the Court,’” and their request amounted to only a “mere ‘hunch.’”

12 Id. at 865. Compare, e.g., Good Job Games Bilism Yazilim Ve Pazarlama A.S. v. SayGames, LLC,

13 No. 20-16123, 2021 WL 5861279, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 10, 2021) (finding that a plaintiff’s

14 proposed interrogatories and requests for productions which sought specific information regarding

15 game downloads, revenue, and advertising was a sufficient basis to grant jurisdictional discovery).

16 The case at bar is analogous to LNS. Here, HireRight has provided concrete evidence that

17 specifically rebuts Plaintiff’s unsupported allegations and arguments in support of general

18 jurisdiction. Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence to support his requests for

19 discovery, nor has he explained how discovery could be helpful to the Court or provide any

20 proposed discovery for the Court to consider. It is also worth noting that, where a plaintiff is

21 asserting general jurisdiction with respect to a company, there might typically be publicly

22 available information demonstrating that the defendant company is at home in the state. Given the

23 lack of any factual predicate to support Plaintiff’s request and the absence of any details of what

24 Plaintiff seeks to discover, Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery is denied.

25 E. Severance and Transfer of HireRight’s Claims

26 Although the Court has found a lack of general jurisdiction over HireRight, it need not

27 dismiss the claims against it. Plaintiff has suggested that, in lieu of dismissal, the Court should

1 Plaintiff does not specify under what authority the Court could effect a transfer of the claims

2 against HireRight. Presumably, he is referring Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 and to 28

3 U.S.C. § 1631. Rule 21 provides that “Misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an

4 action. On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The

5 court may also sever any claim against a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Section 1631, in turn, states

6 in relevant part as follows:

7 Whenever a civil action is filed in a court . . . and that court finds

that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the

8 interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such

court (or, for cases within the jurisdiction of the United States Tax

9 Court, to that court) in which the action . . . could have been brought

at the time it was filed or noticed, and the action . . . shall proceed as

10 if it had been filed in or noticed for the court to which it is

transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in or noticed

11 for the court from which it is transferred.

12 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

13 There is some discussion as to whether § 1631 allows for a transfer where personal

14 jurisdiction (as opposed to subject matter jurisdiction) is lacking. However, “the weight of circuit

15 authority” has broadly understood “that the use of the term ‘jurisdiction’ in § 1631 encompasses

16 both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction,” and “the statute therefore requires a transfer when a

17 district court lacks either type of jurisdiction and the other statutory prerequisites are met.”

18 Franco v. Mabe Trucking Co., Inc., 3 F.4th 788, 795 (5th Cir. 2021); see also Danziger & De

19 Llano, LLP v. Morgan Verkamp LLC, 948 F.3d 124, 132 (3d Cir. 2020) (“a district court that lacks

20 personal jurisdiction must at least consider a transfer . . . [and] [t]he relevant statute provides that

21 the district court “shall” transfer the case rather than dismiss it ‘if [doing so] is in the interest of

22 justice.’ 28 U.S.C. § 1631”); see also Fed. Home Loan Bank of Bos. v. Moody's Corp., 821 F.3d

23 102, 118 (1st Cir. 2016), abrogated on other grounds by Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortg. Corp., 580

24 U.S. 82 (2017) (finding a “broad construction is consistent with § 1631’s purpose and goals” and

25 such an interpretation “is in line with . . . the weight of [circuit] authority”). Although some

26 district courts have held transfers pursuant to § 1631 are limited to cure a lack of subject matter

27 jurisdiction and do not extend to transfers for lack of personal jurisdiction, see Allen v. Conagra

1 circuit courts [] have actually adopted the view that § 1631 does not apply to a transfer to cure a

2 lack of personal jurisdiction.” Franco, 3 F.4th at 795.

3 There is also some dispute as to whether a partial transfer is permissible under § 1631.

4 See, e.g., Allen, 2019 WL 5191009, at *3. However, the Court finds that once the action against

5 HireRight is severed, the resulting suits “may be regarded as two separate and independent

6 actions, each of which is then transferrable [] pursuant to the terms of section 1631.” D'Jamoos ex

7 rel. Est. of Weingeroff v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 566 F.3d 94, 110 (3d Cir. 2009) (holding that a

8 district court may sever the claims against one defendant to transfer them to a proper venue, to

9 cure a lack of personal jurisdiction, regardless of the claims against the other defendants in the

10 action).

11 The Court need not definitively decide these issues because, at the hearing, HireRight

12 indicated that it did not oppose severance and transfer. Furthermore, Defendant Lyft made an

13 appearance at the hearing and did not oppose severance and transfer either. The Court further

14 notes that severance in this case at least would not be problematic given that the claims against

15 HireRight (i.e., a failure to respond to a request for information) are discrete and separate from the

16 claims against the other defendants (e.g., failure to provide adverse action notice, defamation, and

17 intentional interference with economic prospects). See Gaffney v. Riverboat Servs., 451 F.3d 424,

18 442 (7th Cir. 2006) (“[A] district court may sever claims under Rule 21, creating two separate

19 proceedings, so long as the two claims are ‘discrete and separate.’ In other words, one claim must

20 be capable of resolution despite the outcome of the other claim.”).

21 Accordingly, the Court severs the claims and transfers them to the Middle District of

22 Tennessee. There appears to be no dispute that there is general jurisdiction in this Tennessee

23 district court given that this is where HireRight’s headquarters are located.

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

1 III. CONCLUSION

2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery

3 and finds that general jurisdiction is lacking over HireRight. However, in lieu of dismissal, the

4 Court severs Plaintiff’s claims against HireRight and transfers them to the Middle District of

5 Tennessee.

6 This order disposes of Docket No. 20.

7

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

10 Dated: August 9, 2023

11

12 ______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

13 United States District Judge

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27