PHILADELPHIA – Per judicial order, an action brought by a man who said he was incorrectly labeled as a sex offender and denied employment is being transferred from a Pennsylvania federal court to one in Delaware for further proceedings.
In a decision released July 5, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Harvey Bartle III ruled Daniel Alvarez’s litigation against CoreLogic National Background Data, LLC would be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
“CoreLogic maintains a nationwide database of public records. It then sells access to this information to background screening companies that have been engaged by employers to conduct background screenings on prospective employees. Alvarez alleges that, in or about 2008, he applied to be an adjunct professor at Manor College in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania,” Bartle explained.
“After an interview, Alvarez was informed that he would be hired pending a standard background screening process. Thereafter, the college retained ADP Screening and Selection Services, Inc. to conduct a background check on Alvarez. ADP, in turn, contracted with CoreLogic to search its database for records on Alvarez.”
After a number of weeks passed, the college did not contact Alvarez or return his calls and eventually, Alvarez learned that he did not receive the position at Manor College. In January, Alvarez discovered through notice of a class action lawsuit filed against CoreLogic that in 2008, it incorrectly reported to ADP that Alvarez had a prior sex offense-related conviction. Alvarez then opted out of the class action litigation and then filed the instant complaint.
Alvarez is a citizen of Philadelphia, while CoreLogic is a Delaware limited liability corporation with a principal place of business in Texas.
“With regard to general jurisdiction over a corporation, the Supreme Court has instructed that such jurisdiction typically arises only in ‘the place of incorporation and the principal place of business.’ CoreLogic is organized in the state of Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in Texas. As a result, it is not subject to general jurisdiction in this district,” Bartle said.
Furthermore, Bartle added CoreLogic was not subject to specific jurisdiction here, as it performed the background check on Alvarez on behalf of its client ADP, which is based in New Jersey and then submitted to ADP its information on Alvarez through electronic means. As a result, it had no contact with Alvarez or his prospective employer Manor College in Pennsylvania, and CoreLogic maintains no employees or offices in Pennsylvania. Therefore, under those circumstances, Bartle stated that “CoreLogic has not purposefully directed its activities at this forum” and “the fact that CoreLogic is alleged to have caused harm to Alvarez in Pennsylvania is insufficient on its own to establish personal jurisdiction over CoreLogic.”
Bartle said, “Since this court lacks personal jurisdiction over CoreLogic, venue is improper. Recognizing this deficiency, Alvarez has moved to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware where CoreLogic is subject to personal jurisdiction because Delaware is CoreLogic’s state of incorporation. Such a transfer, to which CoreLogic agrees, is in the interest of justice.”
“Accordingly, we will grant the unopposed motion of Alvarez to transfer this action to the District of Delaware. We will deny as moot the motion of CoreLogic to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,” Bartle concluded.
The plaintiff is represented by David P. Heim and Vincent Van Laar of Bochetto & Lentz, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Sharon F. McKee of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:18-cv-01234
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at firstname.lastname@example.org