MCINTYRE v. REALPAGE, INC.
2:18-cv-03934
E.D. Pa.
Aug 25, 2020

Background

  • Plaintiff Patricia McIntyre sued RealPage, Inc. (doing business as On-Site and LeasingDesk), alleging RealPage sells tenant screening reports that include inaccurate, out‑of‑date eviction information in violation of FCRA § 1681e(b).
  • RealPage obtains eviction data from third‑party vendors (primarily LexisNexis), uses vendor summaries rather than fetching original court dockets, and the contract with LexisNexis supplies updates only when "commercially reasonable."
  • McIntyre's On‑Site report listed three Philadelphia eviction matters as adverse when court dockets showed they had been withdrawn, vacated/dismissed, or satisfied; her rental application was denied.
  • Plaintiff proposed a nationwide class (two‑year lookback) of individuals whose tenant screening reports omitted publicly available favorable dispositions and seeks statutory damages for willful FCRA violations.
  • RealPage opposed certification, arguing ascertainability, individualized proof across many courts/vendors, differing platforms, and personal jurisdiction for out‑of‑state class members.
  • The court granted class certification, finding the class ascertainable and that Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) requirements (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, superiority) were met given a common theory that RealPage uniformly relied on vendor summaries without adequate verification.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Ascertainability of class members Class members can be identified using RealPage's reports, dispute records, and publicly available court dockets (objective criteria). Identification would require individualized, extensive fact‑finding across records and courts. Class ascertainable: business and public court records provide objective means to identify members.
Commonality (and Typicality) Common question: whether RealPage's uniform practice (relying on vendor summaries without audits) satisfied § 1681e(b); McIntyre's claims arise from same practice as class. Reporting and data‑collection practices vary by jurisdiction/vendor/platform, so issues are individualized. Commonality and typicality satisfied: shared core evidence about RealPage's procedures predominates.
Predominance and Superiority (Rule 23(b)(3)) Liability turns on common proof (RealPage's policies, vendor reliance, knowledge of error rates); statutory damages claim avoids individualized causation/damages inquiry. Class action is superior to many small individual suits. Determinations require manual review of each report, vendor update timing, and landlord testimony; individualized damages and causation defeat predominance and superiority. Predominance met: common issues capable of classwide proof; superiority met given statutory damages and practical incentives.
Personal jurisdiction for out‑of‑state class members Class action context differs from Bristol‑Myers; forum is appropriate for nationwide class certification. Bristol‑Myers limits jurisdiction over nonresident claims lacking forum connection. Bristol‑Myers inapplicable to class certification here; personal jurisdiction objection rejected.

Key Cases Cited

  • Byrd v. Aaron's Inc., 784 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2015) (plaintiff bears burden to prove Rule 23 requirements by a preponderance)
  • Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 33 (2013) (class action is an exception to individual litigation; damages model scrutiny)
  • Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979) (foundational discussion of class‑action device)
  • Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48 (3d Cir. 1994) (must satisfy Rule 23(a) and at least one subsection of Rule 23(b))
  • In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008) (rigorous analysis required for Rule 23 findings)
  • Marcus v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012) (ascertainability requirement for class membership)
  • In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., 957 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2020) (framework for rigorous Rule 23 analysis and resolving overlapping merits issues)
  • Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) (willfulness under FCRA includes reckless disregard; defines "reckless" standard)
  • Casella v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., 56 F.3d 469 (2d Cir. 1995) (FCRA provides private right of action for negligent or willful violations)
  • Feliciano v. CoreLogic Rental Prop. Sols., LLC, 332 F.R.D. 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (similar FCRA class; common practice theory supported predominance)
  • Soutter v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 307 F.R.D. 183 (E.D. Va. 2015) (certified FCRA statutory damages class where common issues predominated)
  • In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Naloxone) Antitrust Litig., 421 F. Supp. 3d 12 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (discusses predominance and superiority in class certification)
  • Chakejian v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 256 F.R.D. 492 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (certifying FCRA statutory damages class)
Read the full case