Fernandez v. CoreLogic Credco, LLC, 3:20-cv-01262

Background:

CoreLogic Credco (Credco), a consumer reporting agency, produced OFAC/SDN search results ("OFAC reports") to third parties; plaintiff Marco Fernandez alleged a report inaccurately identified him as a possible SDN match.
Fernandez sued alleging violations of the FCRA, California CCRAA, and UCL; litigation included motions to dismiss, a stay pending TransUnion/ Ramirez, discovery, depositions, and settlement negotiations.
Parties agreed to a $58.5 million settlement (insurance-funded) covering three settlement classes: Inaccurate Reporting (≈705,000 members; pro rata payments ≈$47 each), Failure to Disclose (~3,600 members; $1,000 each), and Failure to Identify (~7,400 members; $500 each).
Settlement includes injunctive relief requiring Credco to change OFAC matching/formatting practices and removal of certain report fields; residual funds to Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights (cy pres) if redistribution infeasible.
Notice and administration implemented by Angeion (email, mailed packets, website, hotline); two objections and 70 opt-outs; court found notice adequate and approved final settlement.
Court awarded Class Counsel $14,500,000 in attorneys’ fees (25% benchmark, modestly adjusted), $851,825.77 in costs, up to $2,135,228 for administration, and a $20,000 service award to Fernandez.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Class certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3)	Common issues (whether OFAC reports are consumer reports; reasonableness of name-only matching; failures to disclose/identify) predominate; numerosity and typicality met	Individualized issues and defenses could preclude class treatment	Classes certified for settlement purposes: numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority satisfied
Final approval under Rule 23(e)(2) (fairness, adequacy, reasonableness)	$58.5M fund, direct payments to most class members, injunctive relief, arm’s-length negotiations after substantial discovery and mediation support approval	Settlement only compensates a fraction of possible recovery but avoids significant litigation risk	Court granted final approval as fair, reasonable, and free from collusion after weighing Hanlon factors and amended Rule 23(e) criteria
Attorneys’ fees (percentage vs. lodestar)	Request for 25% ($14,625,000) as benchmark; lodestar and multiplier support award	Defendant agreed not to oppose but court must independently scrutinize rates/hours	Court awarded 25% but adjusted award to $14,500,000 after capping hourly rates and reviewing lodestar (lodestar multiplier within Ninth Circuit norms)
Administration costs, litigation costs, service award, objections	Requested Angeion admin ≤ $2,135,228; costs ~$897,297; $20,000 service award; most class members support settlement	No substantive opposition from Credco; objectors challenged compensation amount and individual grievances	Court approved admin cap $2,135,228, awarded costs $851,825.77 (disallowing certain jury-focus fees), approved $20,000 service award, and overruled objections; listed 70 valid opt-outs

Key Cases Cited

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (U.S. 2016) (standing and FCRA context informing litigation posture)
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (U.S. 2021) (Supreme Court decision prompting stay and affecting FCRA damages/standing analyses)
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (factors for evaluating class settlement fairness)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2011) (standard for commonality in class certification)
In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (heightened scrutiny for collusion in class settlements; benchmark fee guidance)
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (percentage-of-fund method and lodestar cross-check)
Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (standards for incentive awards and attorney-fee review)
Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cnty. of S.F., 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) (protecting absent class members in settlement approval)
Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) (cy pres and evaluation of settlement relief)
Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (cy pres nexus requirement)
In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010) (requirement that class members can object to fee motions)