Frank Noori, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. VIVINT, INC., a foreign corporation doing business in California

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK NOORI, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
VIVINT, INC., a foreign corporation doing
business in California and DOES, 1 through
10, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56459
D.C. No.
2:16-cv-05491-PA-FFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 13, 2018
Pasadena, California
Before: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and QUIST,** District
Judge.
Frank Noori (“Noori”) appeals the district court’s order granting Vivint,
Inc.’s (“Vivint”) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Noori argues that
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUN 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Vivint violated California employment laws by requesting court records regarding
Noori’s expunged conviction and then terminating him. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
California law generally prohibits employers from asking about or taking
employment actions based on expunged criminal convictions. Cal. Labor Code
§ 432.7(a)(1). That general prohibition is inapplicable, however, when an
employer is “required by law to obtain information regarding the conviction of an
applicant.” Id. § 432.7(m)(1).
The district court correctly dismissed Noori’s claims against Vivint because
Vivint was “required by law” to determine whether Noori was a registered alarm
agent before assigning him to work. California’s Alarm Company Act is clear:
“Any alarm agent employee assigned to work must carry either a temporary
application for registration or a valid registration.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
§ 7598.7(a). Noori did not have a valid registration when he was scheduled to
begin work with Vivint. Although Noori had completed a temporary application
for registration, “an employee who has been convicted of a crime prior to applying
for registration shall not be issued a temporary application for registration and shall
not be assigned to work as an alarm agent until the bureau issues a permanent
registration card.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7598.7(b). No temporary registration
shall issue when “the applicant for registration has disclosed the conviction to the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
bureau on his or her application form . . . .” Id. Noori had disclosed the conviction
to the registration bureau on his application form, which expressly required
disclosure of expunged convictions.
Applying the plain language of the Alarm Company Act, Vivint could not
lawfully employ Noori as an alarm agent unless and until the registration bureau
issued him a permanent registration card.1 Hence, Vivint was “required by law” to
not employ Noori on his start date.2 And Vivint’s employment offer was
“contingent upon” Noori obtaining an alarm agent license. Vivint therefore did not
violate the law when it requested court records for Noori’s expunged conviction
and fired him for being “[u]nable to get licensed.”
AFFIRMED.3
1 Other provisions of the Alarm Company Act support that “conviction”—as used
in the Act—includes an expunged conviction. For example, one section grants the
bureau broad discretion to deny an applicant’s registration: “[A]ny action which
the bureau is permitted to take following the establishment of a conviction may be
taken . . . irrespective of a subsequent [expungement].” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
§ 7591.10(a)(2). Another provides that the bureau director “shall give special
consideration to applicants whose convictions have been dismissed pursuant to
[expungement].” Id. § 7593.16(b)(1).
2 Persons who violate the Alarm Company Act or knowingly engage an unlicensed
alarm company operator are guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to criminal fines
and/or imprisonment. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7592.2.
3 Noori did not appeal the dismissal of his claim for wrongful termination in
violation of public policy or his claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act so we
need not address them here.

-- 3 of 3 --