Stauffer v. Innovative Heights Fairview Heights, LLC

Stauffer v. Innovative Heights Fairview Heights, LLC

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:

Presently before the Court is Defendant Sky Zone Franchise Group, LLC's motion, and supporting memorandum, to dismiss (Docs. 119, 120). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.

Background

This case was originally filed by [*2]  Plaintiff Madisyn Stauffer ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois on April 29, 2019 against one Defendant, Innovative Heights Fairview Heights, LLC ("Innovative Heights"), based on Plaintiff's allegations that Innovative Heights violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. ("BIPA") (Doc. 1-1, p. 2). To regulate the use of these biometric identifiers, BIPA provides that a private entity in possession of biometric information "must develop a written policy, made available to the public, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such identifiers or information has been satisfied or within 3 years of the individual's last interaction with the private entity, whichever occurs first." 740 ILCS 14/15(a) ("Section 15(a)"). BIPA also outlines that a private entity may not "collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain a person's or a customer's biometric identifier or information" unless it first informs that person, in writing, that such an identifier or information is being collected or stored and informs [*3]  that person, in writing, of the purpose and length for which a biometric identifier or information is being used, collected, and stored. See 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(1). Additionally, BIPA provides that a private entity must receive a written release executed by the person who is the subject of the biometric identifier or information. 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(1)-(3) ("Section 15(b)").

In the original complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Innovative Heights (Plaintiff's employer) collected and stored her and the other putative class members' fingerprints as part of their employment for timekeeping purposes in violation of BIPA (Doc. 1-1 at p. 4). While still in state court, Plaintiff sought leave to amend her complaint to include a second Defendant, Pathfinder Software LLC doing business as CenterEdge Software, LLC ("CenterEdge"), which Plaintiff alleges controls and operates the system and database where Innovative Heights' stores its employees' fingerprints (Id. at p. 94). Plaintiff alleged that both Innovative Heights and CenterEdge violated Sections 15(a) and 15(b) of BIPA while scanning and storing fingerprints for timekeeping and other purposes (Doc. 1, p. 2). Plaintiff explained that Innovative Heights and CenterEdge never informed her, in writing, the specific purpose of and [*4]  the period for which her fingerprints were being collected, stored, or used in violation of BIPA (Doc. 1-1, pp. 98-99). Plaintiff alleged two separate classes of individuals: those who were employed by Defendant Innovative Heights and worked at its Sky Zone facility in Fairview Heights, Illinois, and those individuals who had their fingerprints collected, captured, purchased, received through trade, or otherwise obtained by CenterEdge (Id. at p. 91).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.