Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Romano v. Active Network Inc.

September 3, 2009

MARY ROMANO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ACTIVE NETWORK INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Samuel Der-yeghiayan, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on Defendant Active Network Inc.'s (ANI) motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated below, we deny the motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Mary Romano (Romano) alleges that ANI is a business that accepts credit cards or debit cards for its business transactions with customers. On or about March 28, 2007, August 2, 2007, and March 24, 2008, ANI allegedly gave Romano an online register receipt, which displayed more than the last five digits of Romano's credit card number and the expiration date in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g) of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA), an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. ANI also allegedly instructs its customers over the internet to print receipts for transactions with ANI. Romano contends that ANI's violation of the FCRA was a willful violation. Romano includes in her complaint one FACTA claim and also includes class allegations in the complaint. ANI now moves to dismiss the instant action.

LEGAL STANDARD

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, a court must "take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true" and make reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Thompson v. Ill. Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir. 2002). To defeat a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis in original)(quoting in part Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); Hecker v. Deere & Co., 569 F.3d 708, 710-11 (7th Cir. 2009)(stating that "Iqbal reinforces Twombly's message that '[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged'")(quoting in part Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949). A plaintiff is not required to "plead facts that, if true, establish each element of a 'cause of action....'" See Sanjuan v. Amer. Bd. of Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1994)(stating that "[a]t this stage the plaintiff receives the benefit of imagination, so long as the hypotheses are consistent with the complaint" and that "[m]atching facts against legal elements comes later").

DISCUSSION

ANI contends that, based on the facts of the complaint, Romano has failed to state a valid FACTA claim

I. Internet Receipt

ANI argues that FACTA does not cover the internet transaction alleged in the complaint. When courts interpret statutes, the courts should "give words their plain meaning unless doing so would frustrate the overall purpose of the statutory scheme, lead to absurd results, or contravene clearly expressed legislative intent."

Gillespie v. Equifax Information Services, L.L.C., 484 F.3d 938, 941 (7th Cir. 2007)(stating in addition that a court "must construe statutes in the context of the entire statutory scheme and avoid rendering statutory provisions ambiguous, extraneous, or redundant; [that courts should] favor the more reasonable result; and [courts should] avoid construing statutes contrary to the clear intent of the statutory scheme")(internal citations omitted). Courts when interpreting statutes "'frequently look to dictionaries to determine the plain meaning of words.'" Id. (quoting Sanders v. Jackson, 209 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 2000)). FACTA provides in 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g) (Section 1681c(g)) the following:

(g) Truncation of Credit Card and Debit Card Numbers

(1) In General

Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.