Gray v. Trans Union, LLC

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 3058) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 2/6/2023. Associated Cases: MDL No. 3058, CAS/3:22-cv-01330, HI/1:22-cv-00420, NV/2:22-cv-01076, NV/2:22-cv-01214, NV/2:22-cv-01382, NV/2:22-cv-01429, NV/2:22-cv-01691, UT/1:22-cv-00078, UT/1:22-cv-00124 (SM)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: TRANS UNION, LLC, BALANCE AFTER
BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE FAIR CREDIT
REPORTING ACT (FCRA) LITIGATION

MDL No. 3058

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel: * Defendant Trans Union, LLC (Trans Union) moves under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407 to centralize this litigation, which involves the alleged misattribution of balances to
accounts for which debts were discharged in bankruptcy, in the Northern District of Illinois. This
litigation currently consists of nine actions pending in four districts, as listed on Schedule A. 1
Defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Equifax Information Services LLC do not
oppose centralization.
All responding plaintiffs oppose centralization. Plaintiffs in the District of Nevada
Loughton action and the District of Hawaii Salzer action alternatively suggest a District of Nevada
transferee forum, and plaintiffs in the District of Nevada Anderson and Genna actions alternatively
suggest a District of Nevada or Southern District of California transferee forum.
After considering the argument of counsel, we are not persuaded that centralization is
necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. The actions contain common factual questions, inasmuch as plaintiffs
in all actions previously obtained bankruptcy relief and had certain of their debts discharged.
Plaintiffs all contend that Trans Union inaccurately reported a balance on one or more former
accounts that were subject to discharge. Plaintiffs bring claims solely for violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. Despite this factual and legal
commonality, centralization does not appear needed to further the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation involving seemingly straightforward claims that a balance was misattributed to certain
discharged accounts.

*
1

Judge David C. Norton took no part in the decision of this matter.

Trans Union’s motion to centralize initially included ten actions. Since the motion was filed,
claims against Trans Union have been dismissed in the District of Nevada Wheeler action, and the
Wheeler action was subsequently removed from defendant’s motion.

-2Plaintiffs argue that centralization is not appropriate because the actions will turn on
specific circumstances (such as the adequacy of any reinvestigation conducted based on plaintiffs’
correspondence) in each of the eight individual actions. Further, they assert that centralization is
not needed because there is only one class action among the nine actions. Plaintiffs contend that
coordination in each of the districts with multiple cases could streamline the litigation. We are
persuaded by these arguments.
As the parties note, the Panel has centralized FCRA litigation in the past, but centralization
in those dockets was warranted, in part, for a reason absent here: preventing inconsistent rulings
on competing motions for class certification. In In re: Michaels Stores, Inc., Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA) Litig., 96 F. Supp. 3d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2015), the Panel centralized three putative
nationwide class actions concerning “whether Michaels Stores failed to properly disclose to
plaintiffs that their credit reports would be accessed in connection with their employment
application.” Recently, the Panel centralized six similar putative nationwide class actions in In re:
Trans Union Rental Screening Sols., Inc., (TURSS) Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Litig., 437
F. Supp. 3d 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2020), which “concern TURSS’s policies and procedures for obtaining,
using and reporting … public records on tenant screening reports,” each of which alleged
violations of Section 1681e(b). Id. In contrast to In re: Michaels and In re: TURSS, here there is
only one class action – the Southern District of California Gray action – and eight individual
actions, which weakens the argument that centralization is necessary to prevent inconsistent
rulings and create significant pretrial efficiencies.
To the extent there is any possibility of duplicative discovery or inconsistent pretrial
rulings, voluntary cooperation and coordination among the parties and the involved courts is a
preferable alternative to centralization. See, e.g., In re: Eli Lilly & Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate)
Pat. Litig., 446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978); see also MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION,
FOURTH, § 20.14 (2004).

-3denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
Nathaniel M. Gorton
Roger T. Benitez
Madeline Cox Arleo

Matthew F. Kennelly
Dale A. Kimball

IN RE: TRANS UNION, LLC, BALANCE AFTER
BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE FAIR CREDIT
REPORTING ACT (FCRA) LITIGATION

MDL No. 3058

SCHEDULE A
Southern District of California
GRAY v. TRANS UNION, LLC, C.A. No. 3:22−01330
District of Hawaii
SALZER v. TRANS UNION LLC, C.A. No. 1:22−00420
District of Nevada
LOUGHTON v. TRANS UNION LLC, C.A. No. 2:22−01076
ANDERSON, ET AL. v. TRANS UNION, LLC, C.A. No. 2:22−01214
SCALLION v. TRANS UNION, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:22−01382
GENNA v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:22−01429
WOOTERS v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.
2:22−01691
District of Utah
MOORE v. TRANS UNION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22−00078
HANSEN v. TRANS UNION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:22−00124