United States District Court, D. Oregon
DUSTIN KAMPERT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
A. RUSSO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. moves to dismiss
plaintiff Dustin Kampert's complaint pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), or alternatively to transfer this case to
either the Middle District of Florida or the Eastern District
of Missouri. 28 U.S.C. § 1406. The Court held
oral argument on February 7, 2018. For the reasons set forth
below, defendant's motion to dismiss should be granted.
brings suit against defendant for violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §
1681b(b)(3). Plaintiff alleges defendant failed to
provide him a pre-adverse action notice prior to denying his
sponsorship for a Series VII stockbroker's license due to
information improperly procured from a LexisNexis Smartlinx
consumer report. Compl. ¶¶ 1-5 (doc. 1).
following facts are undisputed:
was employed at all relevant times by Hake Investment Group,
LLC (Hake), a non-party in this litigation. Hake is a
Missouri-based firm, where plaintiff worked remotely from his
home in Bend, Oregon. Id. at ¶ 6. Defendant is
a for-profit, Florida corporation with its principal place of
business in St. Petersburg, Florida. Meyer Decl. ¶¶
2-3 (doc. 22). Hake is an independent affiliate of defendant;
Hake's employees, like plaintiff, may seek sponsorship
from defendant to become registered financial advisors for
Hake. Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.
2015, Hake instructed plaintiff to submit an application to
defendant for sponsorship to sell financial services products
using a Series VII stockbroker's license. Compl. ¶
25 (doc. 1). Hake initiated communication with defendant from
Missouri on plaintiff's behalf. Kampert Decl. ¶ 12
(doc. 25-1). Hake expressed to defendant its desire to
“bring on a new advisor in the Portland area.”
Kampert Decl. Ex. 4 (doc. 25-1). In response,
defendant sent Hake a “Confidential Profile” for
plaintiff to complete, which included a background check
consent form. Kampert Decl. Ex. 1 (doc. 25-1).
Plaintiff sent a completed application, listing a Bend,
Oregon, home address, back to Hake, who then forwarded it to
defendant. Kampert Decl. ¶ 19 (doc. 25-1).
2015, defendant asked Hake to send plaintiff a new
application. Id. at ¶ 22. Plaintiff
completed the application for a second time and once again
sent it to Hake, who forwarded the application to defendant.
2015, defendant completed a LexisNexis Smartlinx report and
provided plaintiff with a copy. Compl. ¶ 28 (doc. 1).
The report contained a criminal history from public records
in Virginia. The criminal history was expunged from
plaintiff's record in October 2008. Id. at
¶ 29. Plaintiff alleges defendant's improper
procurement of his expunged criminal record is the reason
defendant denied his sponsorship application. Id. at
¶ 31. Plaintiff also alleges that, as a result of the
LexisNexis Smartlinx report, Hake terminated his employment.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), dismissal is appropriate when the
court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The
plaintiff bears the burden of proving personal jurisdiction
is proper. Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1015
(9th Cir. 2008).
courts ordinarily follow the state law of the forum to
determine the bounds of personal jurisdiction. Ranza v.
Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746, 753 (2014)).
Under Oregon's long arm statute, personal jurisdiction is
authorized to the full extent permitted by the United States
Constitution. Id. (citing Or. R. Civ. P. 4(L)). The
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in turn,
requires nonresident defendants to “have certain
minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions
of fair play and substantial justice.” Int'l
Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)
(internal quotations omitted).
plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of
jurisdictional facts. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor
Co.,374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004) (citations
omitted). To determine whether the plaintiff has met his
burden, the court looks only into the plaintiff's
pleadings and affidavits. Id. Uncontroverted
allegations must be taken ...