
    Felix B. PRESCOTT, individually and as representative of the class, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and Automobile Club of Southern California, erroneously sued under AAA Auto Club of Southern California, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-55935
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted February 8, 2017 Pasadena, California
    Filed FEBRUARY 14, 2017
    Devin Heng Fok, Law Offices of Devin H, Fok, Alhambra, CA, John Albert Girar-di, Girardi Keese, Los Angeles, CA, Joshua Eunsuk Kim, Attorney, A New Way of Life Reentry Project, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Anne Grignon, Margaret Anne Grignon, Esquire, Grignon Law Firm LLP, Long Beach, CA, Wayne Robert Gross, Esquire, Greenberg Gross LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, Bret D. Hembd, Greenberg Gross LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendant-Appellee American Automobile Association
    John King Beckley, Esquire, Deputy General Counsel for Litigation, Automobile Club of Southern California, Costa Mesa, CA, Anne Grignon, Margaret Anne Grig-non, Esquire, Grignon Law Firm LLP, Long Beach, CA, Wayne Robert Gross, Esquire, Greenberg Gross LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, Bret D. Hembd, Greenberg Gross LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Automobile Club of Southern California
    Beth Ellen Terrell, Attorney, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Amici Curiae
    Before: GRABER, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Prescott’s employer terminated him from his job as a tow truck driver after a background check he authorized revealed he did not meet the defendants’ requirements to serve their members. Prescott’s employer gave him a pre-adverse employment action notice before terminating him as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, but he did not receive one from defendants. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A). Prescott sued, alleging in his Second Amended Complaint that he suffered an injury traceable to the denied opportunity to challenge HireRight’s adjudication and defendants’ background check policy. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547-50, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016). Because Prescott received all the notice to which he was entitled, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . The parties are familiar with the facts so we do not recount them here except as necessary to explain this disposition.
     