Feliciano v. Corelogic Saferent, LLC

Filing 89

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS re: 40 MOTION to Seal Certain Information and Documents Contained in Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification filed by Corelogic Saferent, LLC, 35 MOTION to Certify Cla ss filed by Claudinne Feliciano. For the reasons stated, plaintiff's motion to certify the class is granted. In light of good cause shown and consistent with my prior order, defendant's motion to seal is granted. See Lugosch III v . Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). Pursuant to my order at the July 18, 2019 hearing, the development of proposed notice, and expert discovery, shall continue during the pendency of an appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), if any. The clerk shall terminate the motions (ECF 35, 40). (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 7/29/2019) (ne)

UNITED STATES DISTRIC T COURT
SOUTHE RN DISTRIC T OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
CLAUDI NNE FELICIA NO,
Plaintiff,
-againstCORELO GIC RENTAL PROPER TY
SOLUTIO NS, LLC,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------- X

OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING MOTION TO
CERTIFY CLASS
17 Civ. 5507 (AKH)
.

USDC SD~Y

1

1
I
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED 1
DOC#: _ _ _ _-=-::-::- -DATE FILED:

1/J.q/fl

ALVIN K. HELLER STEIN, U.S.D.J.:
This case is about alleged inaccuracies in tenant data registries. Plaintiff
Claudinn e Feliciano ("plaintif f' or "Felician o"), on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, filed suit against defendant CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC ("CoreLo gic" or
"defenda nt"), alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA" ), 15 U.S.C. § 1681

et seq., and under the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act ("NYFCR A"), General Business Law
("GBL"), Art. 25, § 380 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that defendant has failed to insure the accuracy
of bulk tenant data before selling the data and the resulting reports to prospective landlords, who
rely on them to assess and screen potential tenants. Plaintiff alleges that, because of delays and
deficient practices in collecting and updating the status of New York Housing Court ("Housing
Court") records reported to landlords, defendant has inaccurately reported that housing suits
against tenants were ongoing, when in fact the suits had been favorably resolved in favor of the
tenant. Plaintiff seeks statutory and punitive damages, in addition to attorneys ' fees.

Plaintiff moves for class certification of a class defined as all persons who within
two years prior to the commencement of this action (1) were the subject of a credit report
prepared by CoreLogic; (2) prior to the issuance of the credit report, were a party in a Housing
Court proceeding filed in a New York State court, which had a disposition of dismissed,
discontinued or withdrawn; and (3) the CoreLogic credit report referenced the Housing Court
proceeding but failed to include such disposition. For the reasons discussed below, I grant
plaintiffs motion to certify the class.

Background

Plaintiff is a New York resident. Defendant is a Delaware corporation with a
principal place of business in Maryland. Defendant regularly conducts business in New York.
The complaint alleges that CoreLogic operates as a credit reporting agency within the meaning
of the statutes, and that it profits by selling credit reports to landlords. First Amended Complaint
("Compl."), ECF 10, ~ 17.

1.

Allegations Applicable to the Class at Large

One source of defendant' s data is purchased electronic records from the New
York State Office of Court Administration ("OCA"), corresponding to Housing Court
proceedings, including eviction proceedings based on non-payment of rent and holdovers
following termination of tenancy. Compl. ,i 2. Defendants describe the collection as a manual
process, in which records are individually obtained by CoreLogic researchers and then updated
for six months following collection. Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion
for Class Certification ("Opp."), ECF 54, at 5.

2

Because of the volume of court records and the technological limitations of public
access computers, defendant allegedly struggled to maintain current records. The number of
monthly Housing Court cases filed reached as high as 8,275. Opp. at 5. Several factors
allegedly compromised the data collection process, including limited numbers of terminals,
competition for access with other terminal users, terminal service outages, general unavailability
of paper records, and delayed access to offsite paper record storage. Deloatche Deel., ECF 55,

,r,r 13-14.

CoreLogic admits that its "field researchers were often unable to stay current with

respect to collection of newly-filed New York housing court actions." Opp. at 6.
In June 2017, CoreLogic began using nationwide housing court data supplied by
non-party LexisNexis Risk Data Management, Inc. ("LexisNexis"). Opp. at 11; Ernst Deel.,
ECF 56, ,r 6. LexisNexis collected data using a different set of protocols, but the distinctions in
protocols are minor. Opp. at 12-13.
CoreLogic adopted a protocol requiring its employees to retrieve any updates to
cases that were filed within the past six months. After six months, CoreLogic assumed that the
case had been abandoned by the parties, but nevertheless designated the status as "Case Filed."
Opp. at 10. 1
CoreLogic uses collected data to generate reports for landlords on prospective
tenants, providing two separate three-digit scores based on secret, proprietary algorithms. Br. at
15. The first score, referred to as the "CrimSafe Decision," is based on the applicant's criminal
record. The second score, known as "ScorePlus" or "Score Decision," is based on the

Defendant's explanation of this issue is not consistent with its other stated positions. If the case is presumed to be
abandoned, then a "case filed" designation is misleading, and it does not accurately describe CoreLogic's best
assessment of the cases' probable disposition, as reflected in its updating policy. If, on the other hand, the cases are
still pending-with the potential to reflect adversely on a tenant's risk to a prospective landlord-furthe r updates
would be indicated.
1

3

applicant's data from Experian (a credit reporting agency), collections agencies, Housing Court
filings, and Teletrack, a proprietary CoreLogic product. CoreLogic represents that ScorePlus
allows prospective landlords to assess the riskiness of a potential tenant and the likelihood that
the tenant will miss monthly rental payments, cause damage, or be unable to renew the lease.
The complaint alleges that CoreLogic fails, as a matter of routine policy and
practice, to update previously filed records upon the receipt of information relating to
dispositions of cases. Compl.

~

26. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that many Housing Court

proceedings are improperly reported as active (with a designation of "Case Filed") even after the
proceedings have been dismissed, discontinued, withdrawn, or otherwise resolved favorably to
the tenant. Compl.

~

26. CoreLogic has allegedly reported 4,229 individuals who had been the

subject of a New York Housing Court proceeding, in which the disposition was inaccurately
described as "Case Filed." Plaintiff alleges that these violations and others were willful, within
the meaning of the statute.
The complaint adopts the following definition for the class:
All persons who within two years prior to the commencement of this
action ( 1) were the subject of a credit report prepared by CoreLogic; (2)
prior to the issuance of the credit report, were a party in a Housing Court
Proceeding filed in a New York State court, which had a disposition of
dismissed, discontinued or withdrawn; and (3) the CoreLogic credit
report referenced the Housing Court Proceeding but failed to include
such disposition.

Compl. ~ 11. Plaintiff estimates that, based on initial discovery, at least 2,600 potential class
members match this definition. Br. at 3. These individuals, contained in a list, constitute the
proposed class.

4

2.

Allegations Specific to the Proposed Lead Plaintiff

Feliciano alleges that on September 25, 2014, her landlord began a summary nonpayment proceeding against her in New York City Housing Court, alleging unpaid rent and legal
fees. Comp1.

~

31. On October 7, 2014, plaintiff alleges that her landlord, recognizing that the

alleged rent had previously been paid, unilaterally filed a notice of discontinuance, terminating
the proceeding. Compl.

~

32. Later, in July 2015, Feliciano applied for an apartment in the

Hunters Point Common housing development, but her application was denied. Compl.

~~

35, 44.

In connection with her application, CoreLogic provided a report of plaintiff to Hunters Point,
which reported the 2014 Housing Court suit against her but incorrectly reported the disposition
as "Case Filed," when in fact the case had been discontinued. Compl.

~~

35-43. Plaintiff alleges

that she received a letter from Hunters Point advising plaintiff that the basis of the denial was
information contained in the CoreLogic report. Compl.

~

44. Feliciano's report also contained

other adverse information, which negatively affected her credit score. St. George Deel., Ex. F,
ECF 58-3, at CLF 90-91. Feliciano alleges that she similarly applied to, and was rejected by, an
apartment development in Rego Park, Queens, based on her CoreLogic tenant report. Br. at 1314. Because plaintiff was unable to rent an apartment in New York City, she returned to live
with her parents in Valley Cottage, New York, and incurred additional costs.
Defendant represents that Feliciano's case information was manually collected by
an individual researcher at a public access terminal on June 29, 2015, after the case had already
been discontinued. DeLoatche Deel.

~

15. The researcher recorded the status of the case as

"Case Filed," and the entry was never updated. DeLoatche Deel.~ 15.
More generally, the complaint alleges that CoreLogic's failure to reflect the actual
and accurate status of thousands of Housing Court cases in the consumer reports to CoreLogic's

5

subscribers has injured the class members who were the subject of these inaccurate reports.
Compl.

~

27. Based on CoreLogic's inaccurate reports, the complaint alleges that class members

are entitled to statutory damages. Compl. ~ 50.

Discussion
A.

Legal Standard

1. Class Certification
The class action is "an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by
U.S.
and on behalf of the individual named parties only." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564
is
338, 348 (2011) (quoting Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-01 (1979)). "Class relief
when
'peculiarly appropriate' when the 'issues involved are common to the class as a whole' and
and
they 'turn on questions of law applicable in the same manner to each member of the class,"'
such a device "saves the resources of both the courts and the parties by permitting an issue
Rule
potentially affecting every [class member] to be litigated in an economical fashion under
23." Gen. Tel. Co. ofSw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 155 (1982) (quoting Califano v.
may
Yamasaki, 442 U.S. at 700-701). Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) provides that members ofa class
bring a suit as a class action, if:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims
or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

the
"A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with
Rule-th at is, he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties,
common questions oflaw or fact, etc." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350.
6

Plaintiff seeks certification of the class pursuant to Rule 23 (b )(3 ), which is
satisfied when "the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). See also Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co.,
277 F.R.D. 97, 104 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Pertinent issues to this determination include:
(A) the class members' interests in individually controlling the
prosecution or defense of separate actions;
(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy
already begun by or against class members;
(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the
claims in the particular forum; and
(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
Class actions require courts to perform a "rigorous analysis" before certification.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 348, 351. The Second Circuit has taught, in the
context of class certification:
1) a district judge may certify a class only after making determinations
that each of the Rule 23 requirements has been met; (2) such
determinations can be made only if the judge resolves factual disputes
relevant to each Rule 23 requirement and finds that whatever underlying
facts are relevant to a particular Rule 23 requirement have been
established and is persuaded to rule, based on the relevant facts and the
applicable legal standard, that the requirement is met; (3) the obligation
to make such determinations is not lessened by overlap between a Rule
23 requirement and a merits issue, even a merits issue that is identical
with a Rule 23 requirement; ( 4) in making such determinations, a district
judge should not assess any aspect of the merits unrelated to a Rule 23
requirement; and (5) a district judge has ample discretion to circumscribe
both the extent of discovery concerning Rule 23 requirements and the
extent of a hearing to determine whether such requirements are met in
order to assure that a class certification motion does not become a pretext
for a partial trial of the merits.

7

"must
In re Initial Pub. Offerings Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24, 41 (2d Cir. 2006). The district court
Rule
receive enough evidence, by affidavits, documents, or testimony, to be satisfied that each
e
23 requirem ent has been met." Id. "A district judge is to assess all of the relevant evidenc
has
admitted at the class certification stage and determine whether each Rule 23 requirement
site for
been met, just as the judge would resolve a dispute about any other threshold prerequi
continuing a lawsuit. " Id.

2.

Substantive Law

"Congre ss enacted FCRA in 1970 to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting,

On-Site
promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consum er privacy. " Wenning v.
Manager, Inc., No. 14-cv-9693 (PAE), 2016 WL 3538379, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2016)
(quoting Safeco Ins. Co. ofAm. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 52 (2007)). "FCRA provides a private
duty
right of action against businesses that use consum er reports but fail to comply" with a
WL
imposed by the Act. Wilson v. Corelogic SafeRent, LLC, No. 14-cv-2477 (JPO), 2017
U.S. at
4357568, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2017) (quoting Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551
a
52). The FCRA creates a duty that "[w]hen ever a consum er reporting agency prepares
of
consum er report it shall follow reasonable procedu res to assure maximu m possible accuracy
1681e(b).
the informa tion concerning the individual about whom the report relates." 15 U.S.C. §
The statute provides for the following damages:
Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed
under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that
consumer in an amount equal to the sum of(1 )(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of
the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than
$1,000; or
(B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a
consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a

8

permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a
result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater;
(2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and
(3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under
this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable
attorney's fees as determined by the court.

15 U.S.C. § 168ln( a).
"[T]he elements of a willfulness claim are (1) inaccuracy and (2) a failure to

On-Site Manager,
follow reasonable procedures that is (3) knowin g or reckless." Wenning v.
s and causation
Inc., 2016 WL 3538379, at *8. "[U]nli ke with negligence claims, actual damage
contex t means
are not elements of a willfulness claim." Id. at *23. "Willfu l" in the FCRA
51 U. S at 57; see also
"reckle ss disregard of statutory duty." Safeco Ins. Co. ofAmerica v. Burr, 5
"FCRA does not
Jones v. Halstead Mgmt. Co., LLC, 81 F. Supp. 3d 324,33 3 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
ate
provide for strict liability for a CRA [credit reporting agency] that reports inaccur
ble procedures
information"; liability does not attach unless "the agency failed to follow reasona
g Whelan v.
in generating the inaccurate report." Wenning, 2016 WL 3538379, at *16 (quotin
(quotation
Trans Union Credit Reporting Agency, 862 F. Supp. 824, 829 (E.D.N.Y. 1994))
8, at *3.
marks omitted); see also Wilson v. Corelogic SafeRent, LLC, 2017 WL 435756
Section 380-j(a) of the New York General Business Law provides:
(a) No consumer reporting agency shall report or maintain in the file on a
consumer, information:
(3) which it has reason to know is inaccurate.
ng
Section 380-j(e) of the General Business Law provides that "[c]ons umer reporti
possible accuracy of
agencies shall mainta in reasonable procedures designed to assure maxim um
Section 380-k of the
the information concer ning the individual about whom the report relates. "
shall mainta in
General Business Law provides that "[ e]very consum er or reporting agency

9

... of
reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of sections ... three hundred eighty-j
this article .... "

B.

Application
1. Standing
As a preliminary matter, defendant challenges class members' standing to assert

their claims. "To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered "an
invasion of a legally protected interest" that is 'concrete and particularized' and 'actual or
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."' Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548
which
(2016). Feliciano's rental application was denied on the basis of her ScorePlus Score, of
her inaccurate Housing Court case disposition status was a contributing factor. I hold that
claims.
Feliciano has suffered a concrete and particularized injury and has standing to assert her
The remaining members of the proposed class also have standing. Plaintiffs
Court
allege that the practices of CoreLogic in inaccurately aggregating and reporting Housing
because
dispositions created a "risk of real harm," and that individuals would be denied housing
of inaccurate reports. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. at 1549.

2.

Personal Jurisdiction

Defendant argues that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over certain out-ofstate class members. Opp. at 35. The argument is irrelevant. Jurisdiction is based on the
of this
collection of data in New York state courts, wherever the class member resides. In light
of
connection to the forwn, defendant's citation to Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court
California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1775 (2017), is inapplicable.
10

Numerosity

3.

class members
Certification is appropriate when "the number of
litigation needlessly com
large so thatj oind er of all members would make

is sufficiently

plicated and

163 (S.D.N.Y.2002). In this Circuit,
inefficient." Banyai v. Mazur, 205 F.R.D. 160,
"numerosity is presumed at a level of 40 members

," Consol. Rail Corp. v. Hyde Park, 47 F.3d

ination of practicability depends on all the
473, 483 (2d Cir. 1995), although the "[d]eterm
numbers." Pub. Emp loye es' Ret. Sys. of
circumstances surrounding the case, not on mere
at 104 (quoting Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d
Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 277 F.R.D.
est numerosity, and the proposed class
931, 936 (2d Cir. 1993)). CoreLogic does not cont
satisfies the numerosity requirement.

4.

Commonality

the action must raise "questions
The second requirement under Rule 23(a) is that
P. 23(a)(2). "Eve n a single com mon question
of law or fact common to the class." Fed. R. Civ.
ality requirement." Pub. Emp loye es' Ret. Sys. of
of law or fact may suffice to satisfy the common

at 105 (citing Mar isol A. by Forbes v.
Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 277 F.R.D.
Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 376 (2d Cir.1997)).

This case presents a number of common questions
whether defendant maintained a uniform practice

. See Br. at 19. These include

of publishing inaccurate Housing Court

rting violates the FCRA and NYFCRA;
disposition statuses; whether such inaccurate repo
es to ensure the accuracy of its records; whether
whether defendant followed reasonable procedur

11

the alleged conduct was willful; the appropriate amount of statutory damages; and the possible
award of punitive damages.
Defendant argues that a number of individual issues preclude class certification.
See Opp. at 27-28. These include 1) variations in the timing of data; 2) number of updates or
audits to the file; 3) case-specific barriers to information updates, such as loss of terminal access;
and 4) variations in procedures adopted by different data collectors and vendors, including
CoreLogic, LexisNexis, and LexisNexis' subcontractor NYE. All of these information resources
ultimately derived from the same New York Housing Court sources. These issues ultimately
'

address a single, uniform inquiry: whether defendant's information collection procedures were
sufficient and reasonable. See Sautter v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 307 F.R.D. 183,203 (E.D.
Va. 2015) (in a§ 1681e(b) case, finding commonality requirement met despite "various
collection methods" because "[ eJach procedure is common across the class and capable of
classwide resolution based on jury findings.").
The commonality requirement is satisfied by the proposed class.

5.

Typicality

The third prerequisite to a class action, known as typicality, is that "the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a). "The third and fourth requirements of Rule 23(a) tend to merge with the
commonality requirement, as all three 'serve as guideposts for determining whether under the
particular circumstances maintenance of a class action is economical and whether the named
plaintiffs claim and the class claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members
will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence."' Pub. Employees ' Ret. Sys. of

12

Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 277 F.R.D. at 106 (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of the Southwest v.
Falcon, 457 U.S. at 158 n.13).

The fact that records of plaintiff were derived solely from records collected by
CoreLogic, and not as a result of data acquired by LexisNexis, does not distinguish her from
prospective class members whose data derived from alternative sources. Opp. at 33. Feliciano's
claims are typical of the class and arise out of the same allegations and claims. There are no
individualized claims or defenses.
The proposed class meets the requirements of typicality.

6.

Adequacy

The last prerequisite to a class action is whether the representative parties "will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class," known as the adequacy requirement. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a). "That determination requires a two pronged inquiry: (1) class counsel must be
'qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation; and (2) class members must
not have antagonistic interests to one another." Banyai v. Mazur, 205 F.R.D. 160, 164 (S.D.N.Y.
2002) (quoting In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Grp., Inc., 960 F.2d 285,291 (2d Cir. 1992)).
Feliciano has actively participated in the litigation up to the present time. There is
no indication that she possesses any interests adverse to the class. Plaintiffs counsel is
experienced in the relevant law and in conducting class actions. Lesser Deel., ECF 36-1, ,i,i 4-8;
Ex. 27, ECF 36-29. Feliciano and her counsel are adequate class representatives.

13

7.

Rule 23(b)(3)

a.

Predominance

The "predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently
cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation." Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S.
Ct. 1036, 1045, (2016). "The predominance inquiry 'asks whether the common, aggregationenabling, issues in the case are more prevalent or important than the non-common, aggregationdefeating, individual issues."' Id. (quoting 2 W. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions§ 4:49,
at 195-96 (5th ed. 2012)).
With the class, common issues predominate individual issues. The allegations as
to CoreLogic's collection, updating, and reporting of case information are common to all
members of the class. Because the class seeks statutory damages, there is no requirement for
individual class members to demonstrate actual harm or for determination of damages. A
finding of predominance is consistent with other FRCA cases. See, e.g., Sautter v. Equifax Info.

Servs., LLC, 307 F.R.D. at 214.
Defendant argues that individual issues-es pecially the accuracy of the individual
reports and the willfulness of CoreLog ic-predo minate. "[W]hether a report is accurate may
involve an individualized inquiry." Gomez v. Kroll Factual Data, Inc., No. 13-CV-0445-WJMKMT, 2014 WL 1456530, at *3 (D. Colo. Apr. 14, 2014) (quoting Owner-Operator Indep.

Drivers Ass 'n v. USIS Commercial Servs., Inc., 537 F.3d 1184, 1194 (10th Cir. 2008)). Here,
defendant takes the position that the accuracy, timing, and technique used to acquire Housing
Court data of each class member would require individualized class determinations. Moreover,
it argues that its methods have varied over time, creating an individualized question of
reasonableness in each case.

14

s'
Defen dant's arguments are not persuasive. To the extent that the report
rd issues apparent on the
accuracy entails differentiated determinations, these are straightforwa
ant would seek to
basis of documentary evidence. Moreover, to the extent that defend
ss of CoreLogic and its
preemptively litigate any and all possible defenses, and the reasonablene
not suited to the class
partners' information aggregation procedures, these are merits issues
certification inquiry.
Comm on issues predominate within the proposed class.

b.

Superiority

s and
"The superiority requirement asks courts to balance, in terms of fairnes
available methods of
efficiency, the advantages of a class action against those of alternative
F.R.D. 332, 351
adjudication." In re Facebook, Inc., ]PO Sec. & Derivative Litig., 312
76, 91 (S.D.N.Y. 2007));
(S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting In re Vivendi Universal, S.A., 242 F.R.D.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
versy.
Here, a class action represents a superior method of resolving the contro
a class action will enable
There are significant efficiency gains to aggregation, and the use of
statutory damages.
members of the class to prosecute claims even for relatively modest

c.

Ascertainability

inability. '"
The Second Circuit has "recognized an 'impli ed requirement of ascerta
touchstone of
Brecher v. Republic ofArgentina, 806 F.3d 22, 24 (2d Cir. 2015). "[T]he
is administratively feasible
ascertainability is whether the class is 'sufficiently definite so that it
Id. (quoting 7 A Charles
for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a memb er."'

15

(3d ed. 1998)). "A class
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1760
is ascertainable when defined by objective criteria that are administrativ
identifying its members would not require a mini-hearing on the merits

ely feasible and when

of each case." Id.

.Y. 2010)).
(quoting Charron v. Pinnacle Grp. NY. LLC, 269 F.R.D. 221,2 29 (S.D.N
inable.
The class, based on documented records produced by CoreLogic, is ascerta
period, plaint iffs counsel
From a list of 4,229 Housing Court Reports issued during the relevant
and Bronx counties,
cross-checked court records in New York, Queens, Staten Island, Kings,
courts had recorded a
identifying 3,996 matching proceedings. In 2,605 of those cases, the
to an inaccurate report.
disposition of the cases before the relevant report had issued, leading
class.
The individuals associated with this cases constitute the scope of the
and the
Defendant makes much of the fact that the determination of the class,
, Housing Court records.
procedures complained of, both ultimately derive from the same source
Opp. at 20, plaintiff does
This line of attack is unpersuasive. Contrary to defendant's arguments,
access terminals are
not take the position that the records available at Housing Court public
ping suitable procedures to
intrinsically unreliable. Rather, defendant's alleged failures in develo
Further, plaintiff relies
access and update the information forms that basis of plaintiff's claim.
of names, but rather adopts
not on the intrinsic accuracy of the information generated on the list
g cases CoreLogic has
them insofar as they identify individuals about whose putative housin
uals identified in the
made reports. The proposed class definition fully encompasses the individ
list, and the words indicating the disposition of their cases.
e.
The identity of the prospective class members is thus sufficiently definit
y.
Accordingly, the proposed class meets the requirements for acertainabilit

16

Conclusion
For the reasons stated, plaintif fs motion to certify the class is granted. In light of

See
good cause shown and consiste nt with my prior order, defenda nt's motion to seal is granted.
t to my
Lugosch III v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). Pursuan
y,
order at the July 18, 2019 hearing, the develop ment of propose d notice, and expert discover
The
shall continue during the pendenc y of an appeal pursuan t to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), if any.
clerk shall termina te the motions (ECF 35, 40).

SO ORDER ED.
Dated:

July 21, 2019
New York, New York

AL VIN K. HELLE RSTEIN
United States District Judge

17