308 F.R.D. 292
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiff Amit Patel applied to rent in July 2013; the landlord obtained a Trans Union SmartMove background report that inaccurately listed a “Terrorist” alert and other erroneous public-record items.
- SmartMove’s matching logic during the class period (Feb 2012–Dec 2013) relied on name-only matches (first and last name) for certain alert data; stricter matching (SSN or DOB) began in December 2013.
- Patel was denied the rental (landlord relied on the SmartMove output), sought his Trans Union file disclosures, and did not receive the SmartMove alert in the Trans Union, LLC disclosure.
- Plaintiff sued Trans Union Rental Screening Solutions and parent Trans Union, LLC under the FCRA, alleging willful violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) (accuracy procedures) and § 1681g (disclosure of file information), and moved to certify two national classes (an accuracy class and a disclosure subclass).
- Defendants contend the two Trans Union entities are separate CRAs, maintain separate data and controls, and argue individual issues (accuracy of alerts, who requested disclosures) preclude class certification.
- The court certified both classes under Rule 23(b)(3), finding numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy satisfied and that common questions predominate over individual issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascertainability of class membership | Class can be identified from SmartMove records (≈11,000 alerts; ≈8,000 during class period) and Trans Union disclosure logs | Alerts may be accurate for some individuals; cross-referencing won’t reliably identify who requested/was sent disclosures | Class ascertainable: records and cross-referencing are feasible; subclass refined to those who were “sent” disclosures |
| Whether accuracy is a common, classwide issue under §1681e(b) | Name-only matching is a systemic, flawed procedure producing widespread inaccurate alerts; common proof can resolve liability | Accuracy is inherently individualized; must assess each file to determine whether an alert was truly inaccurate | Predominance found: given name-only logic and absence of evidence of widespread true matches, common issues predominate; individual defenses remain available |
| Whether Trans Union, LLC must disclose SmartMove alert information under §1681g | Trans Union, LLC exercised sufficient control/operational integration over Rental Screening Solutions (marketing, data hosting, compliance functions) and thus must disclose all file information | Entities operate separately; Trans Union, LLC’s disclosures need not include SmartMove background reports | Common question of control is central and resolvable by common proof; plaintiff’s theory sufficient to proceed as class claim |
| Rule 23(b)(3) predominance/superiority | Central liability questions (procedures, accuracy, control, disclosure practice) can be adjudicated classwide; class action is superior to thousands of individual suits | Individual issues (requests, identification, accuracy) defeat predominance and make class inappropriate | Common issues predominate and class treatment is superior; certification granted for both class and subclass |
Key Cases Cited
- Cortez v. Trans Union, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010) (discusses burden-shifting and proof approaches under §1681e(b) where systemic matching procedures produce inaccuracies)
- Ramirez v. Trans Union, 301 F.R.D. 408 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (found predominance where Trans Union’s matching logic created systemic accuracy issues; relied on common proof)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (certification requires rigorous analysis; merits may overlap with Rule 23 inquiry)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality requires a common question capable of classwide resolution)
- Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013) (merits questions may be considered to the extent relevant to class certification)
- Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass’n v. USIS Commercial Services, 537 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2008) (accuracy issues in reporting can be individualized; courts may deny certification where individualized inquiries dominate)