United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Doris Jeffries, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Appellant
Volume Services America, Inc., doing business as Centerplate and Centerplate/NBSE and Does 1 Through 10, inclusive, Appellees
February 21, 2019
from the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia (No. 1:17-cv-01788)
K. Herrington argued the cause for the appellant. Chant
Yedalian was with him on brief.
W. Bayer argued the cause for the appellee Volume Services
America, Inc. Scott N. Godes was with him on brief.
Before: Henderson and Rogers, Circuit Judges, and Edwards,
Senior Circuit Judge.
LECRAFT HENDERSON, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Jeffries made a credit card purchase at a
Centerplate location and received a receipt that
displayed her sixteen-digit credit card number and credit
card expiration date. Jeffries sued Centerplate for violating
the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003
(FACTA), Pub. L. No. 108-159, § 113, 117 Stat. 1952,
1959-60 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)), which
prohibits printing "more than the last 5 digits of the
card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided
to the cardholder at the point of the sale or
transaction." 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1). The district
court granted Centerplate's motion to dismiss, concluding
that Jeffries lacked standing. Jeffries v. Volume Servs.
Am., Inc., 319 F.Supp.3d 525, 527 (D.D.C. 2018).
Jeffries timely appealed and we now reverse and remand.
crime of identity theft-in which a perpetrator assumes the
identity of a victim in order to obtain financial products
and services or other benefits in the victim's name-
ha[d] reached almost epidemic proportions" in the early
2000s. H.R. Rep. No. 108-263, at 25 (2003). "A hotline
established by the Federal Trade Commission to field consumer
complaints and questions about identity theft logged over
160, 000 calls in 2002 alone." Id.
"[E]lectronically printed receipts" provided
criminals with "easy access to" credit and debit
card information. S. Rep. No. 108-166, at 3 (2003). In
response to the increasing identity theft threat, the
Congress enacted FACTA, which mandates (inter alia):
"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 provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale
or transaction." 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1). Any
person who willfully violates this truncation
requirement-that is, anyone who willfully prints more than
five digits or the expiration date on a receipt-is liable for
"any actual damages sustained by the consumer . . . or
damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1, 000"
and for "such amount of punitive damages as the court
may allow." Id. § 1681n(a)(1)(A), (a)(2).
Jeffries made a purchase at a Centerplate location.
Centerplate provided Jeffries with a receipt containing all
sixteen digits of her credit card number, her credit card
expiration date and her credit card provider. She immediately
recognized that the receipt contained her personal
information and held on to it for safekeeping. Jeffries then
filed this class action lawsuit against Centerplate, alleging
willful violations of FACTA's truncation requirement.
According to the complaint, Centerplate's conduct
violated Jeffries' statutory right and, as a result,
exposed her to an increased risk of identity theft. Because
of Centerplate's conduct, Jeffries was also forced to
take steps to safeguard the non-compliant receipt.
moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing.
Jeffries, 319 F.Supp.3d at 528. The district court
determined that Jeffries did not suffer an increased risk of
identity theft because Jeffries-and only Jeffries-viewed the
receipt containing her credit card information. Id.
at 533-34. The district court also concluded that the burden
of safeguarding the non-compliant receipt-the second form of
harm identified in the complaint-was insufficiently concrete
to support standing. Id. at 530. Finding both harms
alleged in the complaint inadequate, the district court held
that Jeffries lacked standing and dismissed her case for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 534. Jeffries
appeals the dismissal. "Our review is de novo."
Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Serv., 786 F.3d 1050, 1052 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
III of the United States Constitution limits the federal
"judicial Power" to "Cases" and
"Controversies." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2,
cl. 1. A case or controversy does not exist "unless the
plaintiff has standing." West v. Lynch, 845
F.3d 1228, 1230 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Standing has three
elements. "The plaintiff must have (1) suffered an
injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the
challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely
to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision."
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016).
An injury in fact is "an invasion of a legally protected
interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b)
actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)
(quotation marks and internal citations omitted). The
district court dismissed this action at the pleading stage,
when a plaintiff is required only to state plausibly that
each standing element exists. Attias v. Carefirst,
Inc., 865 F.3d 620, 625 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Causation and
redressability are not in dispute. The issue is whether
Jeffries alleged an adequate injury in fact.
contends that the violation of her statutory right under
FACTA constitutes an injury in fact without any additional
showing of harm. "[T]he violation of a procedural right
granted by statute can be sufficient in some circumstances to
constitute injury in fact." Spokeo, Inc., 136
S.Ct. at 1549. The United States Supreme Court has long
recognized that the "Congress may create a statutory
right or entitlement the alleged deprivation of which can
confer standing to sue even where the plaintiff would ...