284 F.R.D. 238
E.D. Pa.2012Background
- Plaintiffs allege defendant’s Esteem system violates the FCRA in a putative class action.
- Esteem is a consumer-reporting service used by subscribing employers to generate background checks.
- Member employers submit incident reports with admission statements; defendant may not require express admissions.
- Pre-adverse action letters are issued on employers’ letterhead with a report but without the admission statement.
- Amended Complaint adds Counts III (1681e(b)) and IV (1681i) and alters Count I to negligent violation of 1681b(b)(3).
- The court discusses relation back, discovery, and whether class certification issues should be resolved pre-discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the class allegations in Count I should be struck | Goode argues class is maintainable for liability-wide issues. | LexisNexis contends class is not maintainable and should be struck as premature. | Denied without prejudice; premature to strike before certification. |
| Whether Counts I–IV are time-barred under §1681p | Amended claims relate back to the original complaint. | Claims are time-barred if not relate back. | Claims relate back; not time-barred. |
| Whether Count III (1681e(b)) relates back to the First Complaint | Allegations amplify prior conduct; fall within Rule 15(c). | Count III introduces new ground not in the original pleading. | Relates back under Rule 15(c). |
| Whether Count IV (1681i) relates back to the First Complaint | Reinvestigation deficiencies are not time-barred; amplified allegations relate back. | Count IV is a new claim not originally pled. | Relates back under Rule 15(c). |
| Whether the Amended Complaint plausibly states §§1681e(b) and 1681i claims | Defendant’s reinvestigation and procedures were deficient. | Pleading insufficient or misdirected; need more proof. | Claims survive the 12(b)(6) standard at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Landsman & Funk PC v. Skinder-Strauss Assocs., 640 F.3d 72 (3d Cir.2011) (rigorous analysis required for class certification)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (motion to strike class allegations relates to certification timing)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading; two-pronged approach)
- Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (clarifies plausibility required after Twombly)
- Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (U.S. 2005) (relation-back requires common core of operative facts)
- Bensel v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, 387 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2004) (amendment relates back when amplifying prior conduct)