Case Name: Nick Miletak v. HireRight, LLC

Case No.: 19CV340891

Plaintiff’s Application to Reconsider and Revoke Order Sustaining Demurrer, or Alternatively, to Modify the Order with Leave to Amend

Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant HireRight, LLC (“HireRight”) is in the business of providing consumer background reports for employment purposes. (Complaint, ¶12.) To carry out its business activities and objectives, defendant HireRight enters into contracts with various vendors and companies who sell a whole host of consumer information that defendant HireRight, in turn, resells to employers who are seeking to hire or make other employment decisions. (Complaint, ¶13.) Defendant HireRight assembles data (including credit history, criminal records, driver history, residential/address history) and delivers it to an employer electronically. (Complaint, ¶14.)

Around August 2018, plaintiff Nick Miletak (“Miletak”) applied for employment with Cardinal Health and signed a consent disclosure authorizing Cardinal Health to obtain a consumer background report prepared by defendant HireRight. (Complaint, ¶18.) On October 8, 2018, defendant HireRight prepared a background report with plaintiff Miletak as the subject and provided the report to Cardinal Health and to plaintiff Miletak via an email link. (Complaint, ¶20.) When accessing the link, plaintiff Miletak had the option to download the prepared report in PDF format. (Complaint, ¶21.) When downloading or printing the background report, the background report encounters scaling shrinkage in converting from HTML file to PDF or printable format. (Complaint, ¶22.) The scaling shrinkage results in the required first page disclosure notice to appear in 11.76-point bold face font. (Id.) The actual font used on defendant HireRight’s HTML page complies with Civil Code section 1786.29 but downloading or printing results in a deficient font. (Id.) Defendant HireRight also failed to send the report within three business days prescribed by Civil Code section 1786.16. (Complaint, ¶23.)

On January 14, 2019, plaintiff Miletak filed a complaint against defendant HireRight, LLC asserting causes of action for:

(1) Violation of Civil Code §1786.29
(2)
(3) Violation of Civil Code §1786.16
(4)

On March 21, 2019, defendant HireRight filed a demurrer to plaintiff Miletak’s complaint.

On June 19, 2019, the court sustained defendant HireRight’s demurrer to plaintiff Miletak’s complaint.

On July 5, 2019, the court entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of defendant HireRight and against plaintiff Miletak.

On July 15, 2019, plaintiff Miletak filed the instant application to reconsider and revoke order sustaining demurrer, or alternatively, to modify order with leave to amend.

III. Plaintiff Miletak’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IV.

As a preliminary matter, defendant HireRight’s opposition raises the issue of jurisdiction. Defendant HireRight cites Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 931, 937–938 where the court wrote:

[CCP] Section 1008 is directed to interim rulings. (Magallanes v. Superior Court (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 878, 882 [213 Cal.Rptr. 547].) Thus, a motion for reconsideration may only be considered before final judgment is entered and while the case is still pending in the trial court. (Eddy v. Sharp (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 858, 863, fn. 3 [245 Cal.Rptr. 211]; Magallanes v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 882; Graham v. Hansen (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 965, 970-971 [180 Cal.Rptr. 604].)

(Emphasis added.)

Here, the court entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of defendant HireRight and against plaintiff Miletak on July 5, 2019. The court loses jurisdiction to rule on a pending motion for reconsideration after entry of judgment. (See APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 180—“the trial court may not grant reconsideration after judgment has been entered.” See also Branner v. Regents of University of California (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048—“A motion to reconsider is not valid if it is filed after the final judgment is signed.” See also Weil & Brown et al., CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2019) ¶9:332.1, p. 9(I)-150.)

Consequently, plaintiff Miletak’s application to reconsider and revoke order sustaining demurrer, or alternatively, to modify order with leave to amend is DENIED.
Calendar line 11

– oo0oo –

Calendar line 12