Kelly v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc., 3:15-cv-05813

Plaintiffs Cesar Alfaro and Michael Kelly sued First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for providing employment consumer reports that contained public-record adverse information without required source-identifying information and without required notice.
The Amended Complaint asserted four FCRA counts and the parties identified an ascertainable settlement class of approximately 8,714 individuals.
The case was transferred to the District of New Jersey; Alfaro was severed and dismissed, leaving Kelly as the named plaintiff.
The parties engaged in discovery, mediation, and subsequent settlement negotiations, reaching a proposed settlement on January 3, 2017; First Advantage did not oppose preliminary approval.
The proposed Settlement Class (for settlement purposes) consists of U.S. persons who received Advantage Direct employment reports from First Advantage between Jan. 1, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2015 that contained at least one civil lien, bankruptcy, or judgment from TransUnion and for which First Advantage did not mail a postage-prepaid written notice naming the report recipient on the day it furnished the report.
The Court conducted the Rule 23 analysis for settlement certification and granted Plaintiff Kelly’s motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Numerosity: whether class size makes joinder impracticable	Class includes ~8,714 members; joinder impracticable	No opposition to certification	Met: ~8,714 members satisfies Rule 23(a)(1)
Commonality / Predominance: whether common issues predominate	Claims arise from Defendant’s uniform practices (notice, source-identification, timeliness) making common questions predominant	No opposition; focus should be on Defendant’s conduct, not individual facts	Met: common legal questions predominate under Rules 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3)
Typicality / Adequacy: whether named plaintiff and counsel adequately represent class	Kelly’s claims arise from same practices and legal theories as class; counsel adequate; no conflicts	No opposition	Met: Kelly is typical and adequate under Rules 23(a)(3)–(4)
Superiority: whether class action is superior to individual suits	Individual litigation would be costly and inefficient for thousands of small claims; class is fair and efficient	No opposition	Met: class action is superior under Rule 23(b)(3); preliminary approval granted

Zinberg v. Wash. Bancorp, Inc., 138 F.R.D. 397 (D.N.J. 1990) (class-size estimation and numerosity guidance)
Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2013) (numerosity principle and no fixed minimum)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practice Litig., 962 F. Supp. 450 (D.N.J. 1997) (treating commonality and predominance together)
Georgine v. Amchem Prods. Inc., 83 F.3d 610 (3d Cir. 1996) (predominance and commonality in class certification)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2011) (commonality standard)
In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008) (predominance requires evaluating common vs. individual issues)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (rigor of predominance inquiry)
Barnes v. Am. Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 1998) (class cohesion and opt-out context)
Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2001) (typicality and adequacy overlap)
In re Schering Plough Corp. ERISA Litig., 589 F.3d 585 (3d Cir. 2009) (adequacy inquiry steps)
Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48 (3d Cir. 1994) (factual differences do not defeat typicality)
In re Prudential, 148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998) (class-certification principles)
Varacallo v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 226 F.R.D. 207 (D.N.J. 2005) (superiority where individual suits are impracticable)
Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747 (3d Cir. 1974) (fairness as explicit criterion in superiority analysis)