Shahriar Jabbari v. Wells Fargo & Company, 965 F.3d 1001

Wells Fargo employees allegedly opened unauthorized accounts and submitted unauthorized applications for customers, generating fees, debt collection, and credit harms.
Plaintiffs Jabbari and Heffelfinger sued on behalf of a nationwide class asserting federal FCRA claims plus various state-law and common-law claims; settlement was reached and the district court certified a nationwide settlement class (May 1, 2002–April 20, 2017).
The district court found common issues predominated, emphasizing the class’s federal FCRA claim as uniformly applicable across states and approved the settlement and fees.
Multiple objectors appealed, arguing the certification failed Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement because the court did not perform a choice-of-law analysis given divergent state laws.
The Ninth Circuit (panel) reviewed under the standard for abuse of discretion and applied its en banc Hyundai decision to affirm certification and settlement approval.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a nationwide settlement class satisfies Rule 23(b)(3) predominance	Classwide common questions (particularly the FCRA claim) dominate and are provable collectively	Differences in state law create individualized issues defeating predominance	Affirmed: common questions predominate; no abuse of discretion
Whether omission of a choice-of-law analysis was legal error	Objectors: Mazza requires choice-of-law; its absence is legal error	Plaintiffs/Wells Fargo: Hyundai (en banc) permits foregoing choice-of-law in settlement context, especially with a federal claim	Held: No legal error; Hyundai controls; choice-of-law not generally required for settlement classes
Whether the FCRA claim unified the class against competing state-law claims	FCRA arises from a common course of conduct (systematic use of consumer reports) and is provable collectively	Objectors: state-law claims (identity-theft, RICO, SCA) may be more important and individualized	Held: FCRA was sufficiently central and important to bind the class; state claims did not outweigh it
Whether the court must evaluate every possible claim’s importance before finding predominance	Objectors: court should assess all claims that might drive relief	Plaintiffs: not necessary; court may focus on the claim(s) that will drive resolution	Held: Court need not assess every conceivable claim; may rely on the claim(s) that drive the litigation

In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (settlement-class predominance analysis need not generally include choice-of-law; federal/common course claims can unify class)
Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) (certification for trial reversed where district court applied one state’s law nationwide without proper choice-of-law analysis)
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (settlement-class certification affirmed without detailed choice-of-law analysis where common issues predominated)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (settlement-class considerations: manageability and predominance assessed differently in settlement context)
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) (courts must identify which common issues will drive resolution when assessing predominance)
Edwards v. First Am. Corp., 798 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2015) (a defendant’s common scheme can present a significant aspect warranting class adjudication)