Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Woods v. Fleetpride, Inc.

Woods v. Fleetpride, Inc.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

March 27, 2022, Decided; March 27, 2022, Filed

No. 1:21-CV-01093

Opinion

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Shauna Woods has filed this proposed class action against a company that distributes truck and trailer parts, FleetPride, Inc. Woods alleges that FleetPride violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (often referred to by its acronym, BIPA). 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. R. 1-1, Compl.1 The Act prohibits private entities from collecting any "biometric identifier"—including fingerprints—from a person unless that person has consented in writing and the private entity has provided certain disclosures. 740 ILCS 14/15(b). Under Section 15(a) of the Act, collectors of biometric identifiers must develop, publicly disclose, and follow a data retention and destruction policy for the biometric information. [*2]  740 ILCS 14/15(a). Woods alleges that FleetPride violated the Act by using a clock-in, clock-out timekeeping system that relied on the collection, storage, and use of employees' fingerprints and biometric information without proper written consent and without making required disclosures. The suit was initially filed in state court, and FleetPride invoked diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), to remove the case to federal court. R. 1, Def.'s Notice of Removal ¶¶ 9-15. FleetPride has moved to stay the proceedings in anticipation of four separate decisions in other BIPA cases—each in a different court and in a different procedural posture—that FleetPride argues will materially impact the present case. R. 13, Def.'s Mot. Stay. Two of those cases have now been decided. As explained in this Opinion, the remaining two cases do not warrant a continued stay. For their part, Woods asks to sever and remand the Section 15(a) claims (that is, the data-retention policy claim) to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. R. 15, Pl.'s Mot. Sever and Part. Remand. For the reasons set forth below, the motion to sever and remand is granted, and the motion to stay is denied.

I. Background

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

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

2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54763 *; 2022 WL 900163

SHAUNA WOODS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FLEETPRIDE, INC., Defendant.

CORE TERMS

biometric, retention, fingerprints, collecting, violations, alleges, scan, removal, publicly, cases, sever, appellate court, motion to stay, retention-policy, destruction, privacy, federal court, disclose, stored, technology, concrete, entities, damages, storage, Notice, statute of limitations, matter jurisdiction, injury in fact, state court, identifiers