Kingery v. Quicken Loans, Inc.
300 F.R.D. 258
S.D.W. Va2014Background
- Quicken Loans allegedly failed to provide FCRA §1681g(g) disclosures to plaintiffs as soon as reasonably practicable.
- Ms. Kingery seeks class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) for claims related to negligent or willful §1681g(g) violations.
- Quicken's loan-process disclosures flow through LOLA, Loan Platform, AMP, Second Voice, and Keystroke, with credit scores stored and categorized.
- Ms. Kingery’s May 2010 loan inquiry resulted in a denial and a delayed credit-score disclosure (three weeks after obtaining scores).
- Class definition includes consumers nationwide denied at prequalification between May 1, 2010 and May 1, 2012 who did not receive disclosures within 21 days.
- Court finds ascertainability feasible via Quicken’s data warehouse and related operational data to identify members.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascertainability of the class | Kingery argues data can identify members from warehouse. | Quicken contends practical ascertainability is limited by data complexity. | Class ascertainable; objective criteria identified. |
| Rule 23(a) prerequisites – Numerosity | At least 458,354 denied prequalifications; class large enough. | Large size supports numerosity but defense notes other limits. | Numerosity satisfied; proposed class sufficiently numerous. |
| Rule 23(a) prerequisites – Commonality & Typicality | Common questions about use of scores and timing apply to all. | Argues variability in use and intent defeats commonality/typicality. | Commonality and typicality satisfied; claims share core issues. |
| Rule 23(a) prerequisites – Adequacy | Class counsel experienced; no conflicts with Kingery. | No significant conflicts shown; representation adequate. | Adequacy satisfied. |
| Rule 23(b)(3) – Predominance and Superiority | Common liability issues predominate; damages manageable; class superior. | Damages and willfulness may create individualized issues; class may not be superior. | Predominance and superiority satisfied; class action proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality and typicality merge; class certification standards)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (predominance requires class-wide proof of liability)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (class certification must serve efficiency and justice interests)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (commonality requires class members share the same injury)
- Cypress Nav. & Gen. Hosp. Ass’n v. Newport News Gen. & Nonsectarian Hosp., 375 F.2d 648 (1967) (ascertainability and manageability considerations in class actions)
- Deiter v. Microsoft Corp., 436 F.3d 461 (2006) (typicality and adequacy considerations in class actions)
- Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (2012) (ascertainability and class certification considerations in modern contexts)