Federal judge lets Ralphs background check suit continue

A San Diego federal judge allowed negligence and Fair Credit Reporting Act claims to proceed in a job applicant’s lawsuit against Ralphs, Kroger and HireRight. The ruling keeps key parts of the case alive after the plaintiff said a withdrawn 2021 job offer followed a background check that did not come with required notices.

Why it matters: - The ruling keeps alive claims that Ralphs, Kroger and HireRight violated federal background-check rules in a hiring decision. - The case could shape how employers handle pre-adverse-action notices when a background check affects a job offer.

What happened: - U.S. District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on Oct. 29 allowed Robert Ochoa’s negligence and Fair Credit Reporting Act claims to move forward in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. - The judge dismissed Ochoa’s claims under California’s Fair Chance Act, aiding-and-abetting theory and Unfair Competition Law claim, but granted leave to amend those claims within 21 days. - The court dismissed Ochoa’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim without leave to amend. - Ochoa filed the lawsuit on Nov. 26, 2025, in San Diego County Superior Court, and the defendants later removed the case to federal court. - Derek Smith Law Group says it represents Ochoa in Robert Ochoa v. Ralphs Grocery Company, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-01204-BTM-JLB.

The details: - Ochoa alleges Ralphs offered him a night clerk job at a store in Carlsbad, California, in July 2021. - Ochoa says he authorized a HireRight background check. - Ochoa alleges HireRight’s first report listed an incorrect address. - Ochoa says he contacted HireRight to correct the report. - Ochoa alleges HireRight then sent a revised report on Aug. 18, 2021, stating “Does Not Meet Company Standards.” - Ochoa says Ralphs then withdrew the job offer. - The complaint says the defendants did not provide FCRA disclosures and notices with the required content and timing before and after the adverse employment decision. - The court’s order says the FCRA requires an employer, before taking adverse action based on a background-check report, to give the applicant a copy of the report and a written description of the applicant’s rights. - Ochoa seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, and a jury trial.

Between the lines: - The ruling does not decide whether the defendants broke the law. It only means the court found two claims plausible enough to continue. - The timing issue became central, which is why some claims were dismissed while others survived. - Zachary Rosenbaum, a partner in Derek Smith Law Group’s Los Angeles office, represents Ochoa. - Rosenbaum said federal and California law give job applicants notice rights and a chance to respond before a job offer is withdrawn. - The complaint says the allegations have not been proven and the defendants can still contest the case.

What’s next: - Ochoa may file a revised complaint on the dismissed state-law claims within 21 days. - The negligence and FCRA claims will continue through the federal case unless resolved earlier. - The parties can still litigate the factual dispute over the background check and the withdrawn offer.

The bottom line: - A federal judge kept the core background-check claims alive, giving Ochoa another chance to pursue damages over a job offer he says was pulled without proper notice.