Pitre v. Wal-Mart Stores CA4/3

Filed 1/14/25 Pitre v. Wal-Mart Stores CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

RANDY PITRE et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, G062638

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2017-00927449)

WAL-MART STORES, INC., OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, William D. Claster, Judge. Affirmed. Setareh Law Group, Shaun Setareh, and Thomas Segal for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Jones Day, Nathaniel P. Garrett, John A. Vogt, and David A. Phillips for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

In this putative class action case, plaintiffs allege that defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Walmart) violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in the course of hiring them and others similarly situated. Specifically, Walmart provided a disclosure stating that it intended to run a credit check on the interviewee, but that disclosure was not in a stand-alone document as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b. 15 U.S.C. section 1681n entitles an employee who received a deficient notice to either actual damages or damages of between $100 and $1,000. Plaintiffs admit they have no actual damages because they fully understood Walmart was going to run a credit check and would have authorized it regardless, but they claim they are entitled to statutory damages. In 2022, the Fifth District decided Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 671 (Limon), where the court held that plaintiffs who cannot allege an injury from a deficient notice under the FCRA do not have standing to bring a claim. After the Limon decision, the trial court below felt compelled to grant summary judgment in Walmart’s favor. Plaintiffs appealed. We affirm. Plaintiff’s principal contention on appeal is that Limon was wrongly decided. However, in the recently published case of Muha v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 199 (Muha), this panel concluded that Limon was correctly decided. There is no dispute that, under Limon, plaintiffs lack standing because they did not suffer a concrete injury. Accordingly, we affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE In June 2017, Pitre filed the underlying complaint against Walmart on behalf of himself and the class of all others similarly situated. He alleged that he was a former Walmart employee. According to the complaint,