Soutter v. Equifax Information Services, LLC
307 F.R.D. 183
E.D. Va.2015Background
- Plaintiff Donna K. Soutter sued Equifax under the FCRA, alleging Equifax published inaccurate Virginia general district court judgments and failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy under §1681e(b), and acted willfully under §1681n.
- Earlier class certification was granted, vacated on appeal for failing Rule 23(a)(3) typicality; the Fourth Circuit remanded for a fresh, rigorous Rule 23 analysis. Plaintiff narrowed the class and limited the period to events through April 1, 2009.
- Equifax obtained court data via vendor LexisNexis; record developed on remand showed LexisNexis collected judgment disposition data from the centralized Virginia OES database in a uniform, largely automated way during the class period, and disposition collection standards differed from entry-collection standards.
- Soutter provided evidence she notified Equifax about her vacated judgment before Equifax furnished at least three inaccurate consumer reports; the proposed class is limited to persons who gave Equifax notice (or similar communication) about a judgment disposition before Equifax furnished a report reflecting the adverse status.
- The court conducted a renewed, rigorous Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) analysis, addressing ascertainability, numerosity (~1,000 members), commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority, and ultimately certified the class with refined definitions and appointed class counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascertainability of class membership | Class members can be identified by objective comparison of OES database and Equifax records; limited manual review is feasible | Process burdensome; Equifax’s archived "frozen scans" obscure exact update dates; plaintiff (Soutter) allegedly not in class | Class ascertainable; court adopted minor timing fix (report must be at least 30 days before any correction) and found objective criteria sufficient |
| Commonality & Typicality (inaccuracy; procedures) | Inaccuracy and reasonableness can be resolved by common evidence (OES data, contract, uniform LexisNexis practices, Equifax procedures); Soutter’s claims track class claims | Accuracy is individualized; procedures vary by court and lead to individualized issues | Commonality and typicality satisfied: inaccuracy, reasonableness of uniform procedures, and handling of consumer notice are common questions resolvable classwide |
| Willfulness and statutory damages | Willfulness (knowing or reckless conduct) arises from uniform policies/procedures and may be decided on common evidence; damages may be individualized but are secondary | Willfulness and statutory damages typically require individualized inquiries and preclude predominance | Willfulness is a common, qualitatively predominant issue tied to uniform procedures; statutory damages may be individualized but do not defeat predominance or superiority |
| Predominance & Superiority (Rule 23(b)(3)) | Common liability questions (accuracy, procedures, willfulness) predominate; class is superior because individual suits are impractical | FCRA statutory damages and fees make individual actions viable; manageability and novelty weigh against class | Predominance and superiority satisfied: common liability issues predominate; class action is superior and manageable given efficiencies and opt-out protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) (Supreme Court clarifies willfulness standard under the FCRA includes reckless conduct)
- Dalton v. Capital Associated Indus., Inc., 257 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 2001) (articulates §1681e(b) elements: inaccuracy and unreasonable procedures)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (Rule 23 commonality requirement; class claims must hinge on common contention capable of classwide resolution)
- EQT Prod. Co. v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 2014) (discusses ascertainability and relevance of uniform practices to class certification)
- Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., Inc., 348 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2003) (discusses superiority and certifying liability issues while reserving individualized damages)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (class certification principles and the balance of efficiencies and fairness)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (predominance requires a rigorous analysis; common issues must be qualitatively significant)