Branch v. Government Employees Insurance Company

Filing 76

MEMORANDUM OPINION. For the foregoing reasons, PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (ECF No. 66 ) will be denied. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 01/10/2018. (walk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

TIFFANIE BRANCH,
individu a lly and on behalf o f
all others s imila rly s itu a ted ,

JAN I 0 20!8
C&.ERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND VA

Pla i nti f f ,

Civil Action No . 3: 1 6-cv-1 0 1 0

v.
GOVERNMENT EM PLOYEES
INS URANCE COMPAN Y,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This

matter

is

before

the

MOTION FOR CLAS S CERT I FI CAT ION

Cou rt

( ECF No.

on
66) .

P LA I N T I FF'S

RENEWED

Fo r the reasons set

forth below, the motion will be denied .
BACKGROUND
Procedura1 Background

A.

On
Cla s s

December

Acti on

30 ,

Compla i nt

simi l a rly s ituated,
Company
Cred i t

201 6 ,

{ "GE I CO" )
Repo rting

on

T i f fa n i e
behalf

Branch

of

( " Branch " )

herself

and

f i led

a ll

a

others

alleging th at Government Employees In s u rance
v i o l ated
Act

S ection 1 681 b { b ) ( 3 ) (A)

{ " FCRA" ) .

ECF

No .

1.

of

That

requires that:
In u s i ng a con s umer report for employment
purpo ses , befo re ta king any adverse acti o n
ba sed i n whole or in part on the report, the
person intend ing to take such a dverse action

the

Fa i r

prov i s i o n

shall provide t o t he cons ume r t o whom t he
report rela t e s :
( i ) a copy o f t he repo rt;
and (i i) a des cript i on i n wr i t i ng o f the
right s
of
the
con sume r
unde r
this
s ubchapter, a s p r e s ent ed b y t h e B u r e a u under
sect i on 1 681g(c) ( 3 ) o f this t it le .
Branch t hen f i l e d a n Amended Cla s s Act ion Compla i nt on Apr i l 11 ,
2 017 , which is the operative compla i nt here . ECF No. 2 3 .
GE ICO moved

for

summa ry

judgment

on Augus t

18,

2 0 1 7. ECF

No .

39.

The Cour t denied that mo t ion on De cember 18,

No .

74 ,

finding t h a t a genuine dispute o f ma t e r i al fact ex i s t ed

as

to

when

whether

GE ICO

i nte racting

(ECF No . 73 )

had

wi t h

complied

Branch

cert i fica t i on .

1 8,

ECF No .

2 0 1 7,

41.

Se ct i on

speci f i ca ll y .

("Sununary Judgment Op . " )

Als o on Augu s t

with

20 1 7,

ECF

1 681b(b) ( 3 ) (A)

Memorandum

Opinion

at 3 2 - 3 3 .

B ranch init ia lly moved for cla s s

The brie f i ng o n t h a t mo t ion concerned

a proposed cla s s of i ndi viduals who were a s s igned a " Fa il" grade
by GE I CO be cau s e of a n y d e f ici ency in t h e i r bac kgrou nd report s .
ECF No.
judgment

4 2 a t 9.

Howeve r ,

moti on,

B r a nch's

narrow the

cla s s

spec i f ically

to

those

beca u s e

of

at ora l
counsel

stated

ind i viduals
the

ba ckground repo r t s .

October 3 ,

42:16-20;

27,

September

argument

2017

on GE I CO's
that

a s s i gne d a

crimi na l

Transcript

6:5 .

2

Branch
''Fa il"

his torie s

2 017 Trans c ript
(ECF

summary

in

( ECF No.
No.

56}

at

would
grade
the i r
60 )

at

5:21-

As

a

res u l t ,

B ranch

filed

cert i f icat ion o n Oct ober 1 6,
t he mot i o n .

EC F No .

71 .

a

renewed

2 0 1 7 . E C F No .

Branch ha s

motion

for

class

6 6 . GE ICO ha s opposed

rep l i ed .

EC F No .

72 .

Thu s ,

t he matt er i s now ripe .
B.

Factual Background
1.

Branch's Application to GEICO

Bra nch a pp l i ed
26,

2 016 ,

for

emp l o yme nt

with

GE ICO ,

and,

on

Augu s t

Branch accepted GEICO ' s o f f e r t o jo i n the company as a

L i ab i l it y C l a ims Representa t i ve .

The o ffe r was cont ingent on t he

resu l t s o f a background check . Around t he s ame t ime ,
completed

GEI CO's

conn ect i on
l isted,

with

as

Supplement a l

t he

he r

Informa t ion

ba ckg round

only

c r imi n a l

check.

Form

On

Branch a l so
for

use

t ha t

form,

a

Decembe r

convi ct ion ,

in

Branch
2 0 15

con v i ct i on for pet i t l a rceny .
On
Bra nch

Sept ember
from

a

2,

GE I CO

con s umer

reque s t e d

report i ng

a

ba ckground

agency ,

General

check

I n format ion

Se rvices

( "G I Sn ) . G I S comp l e t e d Bran ch's backg round report

Repo rtn)

and

r e f l e ct e d
record:
( t hat

that

t he

it

to

Branch

De cember

71 - 4 ) ,

Ex .

GEICO

had

2 0 15

Branch reported),

convi ct ion

2011

s e nt

as

t wo

on

Sept ember

crimi n a l

mis demeanor

( that Br anch did not report) .
2

at

convi ct i on

10.
as

a

The

Repo rt

f e l ony .

On

3

The

conv ict ions

pet i t

we l l as a 2 0 1 1

21.

( "t he
Report

on

her

l a r ceny convi ction

f e l ony pet it l a rcen y

C ama cho Deel .

er roneou s l y
September

on

( EC F No .

cha ract e r i zed

21,

a ft e r

t he

rev i ewing

t he

Report ,

a

GEI CO

emp l oyee,

Brit

Collins,

assigned

it

a

pre l imina ry grade o f "Fa i l " 1 be cause o f a "CRIM l" code . 2
Later

t ha t

( "Pa r ker" ) ,

da y ,

a n other

GEICO

emp l o ye e ,

La toria

ca l led Branch regarding t he cont e n t s o f t he Report .

The exact det a i l s o f t he conversation a re d i sput ed .
t ha t

Pa r ke r

told

he r

t ha t

G EICO's

j ob

o f fer

Branch sa i d

was

because o f t he 2 0 1 1 felony convict ion in t he Report .
t he

other

Pa rke r

hand ,

t e stif ied

tha t

she

i n f o rmed

rescinded
Parke r ,

Bra nch

t ha t

on
she

woul d rece ive a l e t t e r from G I S about t he Report be cause GEICO
had concluded that B r an ch's crimi n a l histo r y would preclude he r
from

emp loyment

at

GE I CO,

accuracy o f t he Report .
tol d

Parke r

t ha t

t he

t ha t

she

The p a r t ies agre e ,

2 0 11

howeve r ,

was

a

tha t Branch

misdeme anor

she

had

pled

Branch

pet i t

furt her exp l a i n i ng tha t she had been charged with felony
t ha t

Tha t n i ght ,

t he

Par ke r ,

but

felon y .

d i spute

conv i ct i on ,

l a rceny ,

a

conv ict ion

could

l a r ceny

grand

not

a nd

g ui l t y

to

a

e-ma i l ed

reduced

misdemeanor charge .
On Sep t ember 2 2 ,
letter
ri ght s
1

con t a in i ng
( "t he

the

2 0 1 6,

on GEICO' s beha l f ,

Report

P re-Adverse

The basis for the "Fail"

and

Act i on

a

summa ry

Le t te r u ) .

G I S sen t Branch a
of

Branch' s

B ranch

could

FCRA
not

grade is disputed but immaterial here,

as that disput e does not impl i ca t e the f a c tors re levant t o c l a ss
cert i f icat ion .
2 As discussed be low , GEICO uses a v a r i e t y o f codes such as thi s
to notify app l i ca n t s why t hey a re i n e l i g i b l e f o r emp loyment a t
GE ICO .
4

reca l l whether she eve r i n i ti a t ed a dispute w i t h G I S about the
accuracy o f he r Repor t . But , b y Oct obe r 3 ,
had hea rd from Branch ,
GE I CO

wou l d

not

be

n e i t h e r GIS nor GEI CO

s o G I S sent Branch a l e t t e r s t a t i ng t h a t

hir ing

her

ba sed

on

the

con t e n t s

of

the

in

its

Report ( "the Adver s e Act i o n Let t e r" ) .
2.

GEICO's Job Application Process

GE ICO's

backg round

Adjudica t ion
Proces s " ) ,

Proce s s

Cama cho

for

for

peri od,

an

of

Ex .

C amacho Deel . � 4 .
to

use

GIS

then

Checks

( "the

was

repo r t s

the

app l i c a n t

Adjudicat i on

GEICO' s
du ring

o fficial
the

cla s s

a

mu s t

comp l e t e

a

which cont a i ns i n forma t ion that a

i n t o G I S s y s t em .

gene r a t e s

de s cr i bed

Once GEICO exte nds a condi t i ona l j ob

Suppleme n t a l I n forma t i on Fo rm ,

3-5.

is

which

1,

b a ckg round

appl icant,

GEICO employee enters

proce s s

Background

Deel . ,

po l icy

offer

the

check

Ad j ud i c a t ion

background

report

and

Proce s s
ma rks

at

each

port ion of the repo rt as e i th e r "Pa s s " or "Revi ew , " depending on
whether

that

pa rt

satis fies

GE I CO' s

employment

e l igibi l i t y

requi rements. Once G I S comp l e t e s �he background report ,

a GE I CO

emp l o yee reviews i t and a s s igns i t a grade o f " Pa s s " or "Fa i l , "
based

on

whether

requ i reme n t s .

Th i s

g i ve n t h e report

the

repo rt

me e t s

review occurs i n a l l
a

n o t a t ion o f

" Pa s s . "

5

GE I CO ' s
ca s e s ,
The

e l i g ib ili t y

even i f G I S h a s

emp l oyee mu s t

also

enter one or more code s noting the re a s on for the " Fa i l" grade. 3
Adj udi cation Proce s s a t 6.
report

conta ins

convicti ons ,

That grade ma y be a pprop r i ate i f the

f e l ony

convi ctions

or i f the report s hows

or
a

certa in

mi sdeme anor

conviction that wa s not

disclo sed on the Suppl emental Information Form.
As
GIS

i n Branch ' s

sends

the

b u s i ne s s - da y
addre s s
grade .

the

a fte r GEICO

Pre -Adverse
" cu re

Action

period"

de f i ci ency

When the

history,

ca se ,

"Fa i l"

in

Letter,

during
the

grade

a s s igns

re lates

l ed

the

a

grade ,
s even-

appl i cant
to

the

report's

can

"Fa i l"

cri mina l

the app l icant mu s t contact GIS directly to dispute th e

repo rt's a ccuracy. Noneth e l e s s ,

a GEICO employee mu s t review the

GIS

system throughout the cure peri od to

ha s

addre s s ed

grade .

the

that
to

''Fa i l"

initi ati ng

whi ch

report

a

with

GIS

the

de ficiency

I f the appl i cant h a s done s o ,

see

i f the

lea ding

to

appli cant

the

"Fa i l "

tha t emp l oyee i s requ i red

to change the grade f rom "Fail" to " Pa s s . " Id. at 7.
GIS

then ma i l s

a n Advers e

Acti on Letter to

a ny

app l i cant

who s e ba ckground report s ti l l ha s a " Fail" g r a de a t the e nd of
the

cure

fa i l ed to ,
GEICO

period,

e i ther

beca u s e

cure the i naccuracy .

employee

informs

the

the

appli cant

cou l d

not,

Afte r GIS sends tha t l etter,

app l i cant

that

GEICO

has

or
a

res cinded

3 The only code s re l evant here are "CRIMl , " " C RIM2 , " a nd "CRIM3 , "
which concern app licants ' cri minal h i s tori e s .

6

the

offe r .

Th e

Adj udica t ion

P roce s s

preclude s

appli cant of the re s ci ssion before t h a t point .
Dur ing
based

on

the

cla s s

criminal

period ,

h i story

GE I CO

to

the

informi ng

the

I d . at 7 - 8 .

a s s igned

background

a

" Fai l"

repo r t s

grade
of

426

appli can t s . 4 The final g ra des fo r the repo r t s of 96 individuals
were eventually changed to " Pa s s . " In addi t i on ,

the final gr ade s

for the report s of 14 appl icants were eve n t ua lly changed to " N o
Gr ade . "

S uppl .

Cama cho

( EC F

Deel.

No .

71-8)

� 8. a

-

.b.

Th i s

change would have occurred beca u s e the a pplica n t did not proceed
with

the

appli cat i on

background

repo r t ,

w i thdraw i ng

from

Proce s s a t 8 .

proce s s

s uch

as

for

fa iling

co n s ide r a t ion

Fina l l y,

rea s o n s

for

the
a

unrela t e d
drug

pos i t i on .

to

the

s creening

or

Adj udica t i on

the final grades for t he repo rts of 316

appli can t s from the p u t a t ive cla s s rema ined " Fa il" a t the end o f
the cure period . S uppl. Camacho Deel . � 8 . b .
C.

The Proposed Class

Branch seeks t o certify one cla s s . Tha t cla s s i s defi ned a s :
natural persons re s i di n g i n the Un i t ed
States {i n cludi n g all territo r i e s and other
pol i t i cal s ubdi v i s ions of the Un i t ed S t a t e s )
( a) who s ubmi t ted an employment appli ca t ion
o r other reque s t for placement t o GEICO and
rece ived a condi t ional j ob offe r ;
( b) who

All

4
Branch rei t e r a te s her po s i ti on from the s umma ry j udgme nt
bri efing that th e Court cannot con s i de r t h e s e numbers becau s e
they are based o n i n a dmi s s i ble hea r s a y. However , that a rgument
i s re j ected h e re for the s ame re a s ons tha t i t wa s rej ected in
cons i de r i ng GEICO' s s umma r y j udg ment mot i on. S umma ry Judgme nt
Op. at 8-20.

7

were t he s ubjec t of a GIS consumer repo rt
which
was
used
by
G E I CO
to
make
an
employment dec i s i on f rom December 2 9 , 2 0 14
to
the
p resen t ;
( c)
about
whom
G E I CO
inserted a \\FA I L" a djudica t ion in t h e G I S
s ystem b a s ed on a coding o f CRIMI, CRIM2, or
C RI M 3 ; and (d ) to whom GEICO did not provide
a copy of t he cons umer report and summa r y of
right s
as
required
by
15
U . S . C.
§
1681b (b ) ( 3 )
at
lea s t
f i ve bu s i ness da ys
before the date t he consumer ' s report a t G I S
was f i rs t graded w i t h t he " FAIL" res u l t .
B ranch
even

if

who

were

further

that

a

concl udes

the Court

a ssert s

that

t hose propo s ed cl ass members

eventua l l y

hired

by

cla s s

G E I CO

or

should

be

w i t hdrew

cert if ied

f rom

the

app l i cation process before the end of the cure per iod suffered
no a dver s e act ion . In t h a t case,

Branch a rg ues ,

t he Court shou l d

simply modify t he c la s s def i n i t ion to excl ude the proposed cl a s s
members who were hi red b y G E I CO o r w i t hdrew .
DISCUSSION
I.

Legal Standard

To obt a in c l a s s certifica t ion ,
four

requi rement s

commona l i t y,
Prod .

of

Fed .

t yp i ca l i t y,

Co v .

Ada i r,

764

R.

and

a p l a i n t iff mus t s a t i sf y the
Civ .

P.

adequacy

F . 3d 3 4 7 ,

358

of

2 3(a) :

numero s i t y ,

represent a t ion .

(4 t h C i r.

2 01 4 ) .

EQT

The case

mus t a l so f a l l w i t h i n at lea st one of the t ypes of c l ass act ions
defined

Rule

in

Rule

2 3 ( b ) (3),

ques t i ons

of

23 (b}.

which

law

or

Here,

Branch

requi res
fac t

the

common

8

to

seeks

Court
clas s

certification

to

f i nd

members

"that

under
t he

predominate

over any quest ions a f fect i n g only individual members,

and that a

class act i on i s superior t o ot her ava i l a b le methods for f a i rl y
and ef f ic ien t l y a djud i c a t ing t h e con t roversy . "

Fed .

R.

Civ.

P.

2 3 ( b } (3 ) .
The Court must

perform a

whet her t he p l a i nt i f f

ha s met

cl ass cert i f icat ion f a c t or .
U . S.

338 ,

351

"rigorous a n a l ysi s "

(2011 }

t o determine

i t s requi red showing

Wal -Mart Stores,

( i nterna l

I nc.

quota t ions

v.

as t o ea ch
Dukes ,

omi t ted) .

5 64
This

anal ysis extends t o i ssues of l i abi l i t y a s wel l as damag es a n d
causa t ion .
( 2013 } .

See

The

Comc a s t

Court

is

Corp .
not

v.

Behrend ,

requi red

pleadings when assessing whether a
v.

Gra n t

see

a lso

Gariety
2004 } ;
seeki ng

class

Thornton ,
Dukes,

LLP ,

5 64

comp l i ance w i t h t h e Rule-t hat
that

there

are

in

fact

U . S.

accept

27,

3 4- 3 8

p l a int i f f [' s]

c l a s s shou l d be cert i f ied . "

3 68

F. 3 d

3 5 6,

at

350 .

R a ther,

U. S.

cert i f i ca t i o n must

"to

569

365

a f f irma t i vel y

is,

(4 t h
"[a]

Cir .
part y

demonst ra t e h i s

h e mu s t b e prepared t o prove

su f f ic ien t l y

quest ions o f law or fact , et c . " Dukes,

numerous
5 6 4 U . S.

part ies,
at 3 5 0

common

( emphasi s

in orig i na l ) .
Because o f t h i s sta ndard ,
' cl ose look'
and ,

if

319

court must take a

a t the facts relevant t o the cert i f i c a t i o n ques t io n

necessary ,

ma ke spec i f i c

cert i fi c a t i on . " Thorn v .
3 11,

" the dis t ri ct

( 4 th

C i r.

f i ndings on

t he propriet y o f

Jefferson- P i l o t Li fe I n s . Co . ,

2006)

( quot ing

9

Gariet y ,

3 68

4 4 5 F . 3d

F. 3 d a t

3 65} .

Such findings a re n eces s a ry "even i f the i s sues tend t o overlap
into the merit s o f the underl ying c a s e, " but " t he l ikel ihood o f
the p l a i nt i f f s' succes s o n the meri t s .

.

. is

not relevant t o

t he i s sue o f whether cert i f i c a t i on i s proper.n I d.
the Court 's
meri ts

of

hel ped. "
gra n t s

a n a l ys i s
the

564

courts

relevant
class

to

to

no

U . S.

"en t a i l

underlying

at

l i cen se

35 1 .

the

to

engage
s t a ge .

t he extent -but

determining

cert i f i c a t ion

only

whether

are

s a ti s f i ed . "

Tha t

same

in

t ime,

23

Amgen

ques t ions

v.

23

meri ts
ma y be

they a re

prerequ i s i tes

Inc.

be

"Ru le

t h e ext ent-t h a t
Rule

the

cannot

f ree-ra nging

Meri ts

to

the

s ome overlap w i t h
c l a im .

At

the cert i f i ca t i on

at

con s idered

o f t en

pla i nt i f f ' s

Dukes ,

inqu i ries

wi l l

Nonetheles s ,

Conn .

for
Ret .

Plan s & Tru st Funds , 5 68 U . S . 4 5 5 , 4 6 6 ( 2 0 1 3) .
II.

Ru1e 23(a)

Rule

2 3 ( a}

cert i ficat i on .

es t a b l i shes

four

They are t ha t :

( 1}

requ irement s

the c l a s s i s s o numerous that

jo i nder of all members is impracticable;
of

l aw

cla ims
t he

or

fact

common

t he

will

interes t s o f t he c l a s s .
requi rements

t yp i ca l i t y
whether .

fa irly
Fed .

"tend

' serv(i n g]
.

of

. ma intenance

R.

Civ .

a

P.

merge ,

cla s s

10

represen t a t i ve's

the c l a s s ;

a dequately

with

a c t i on

and

represen t

2 3{a ) ( 1 ) -{4 ) .

guidepo s t s

as
of

the

those o f

and

to

{2 ) t here are ques t i ons
( 3}

cla s s ;

or defen ses a re typ i c a l

represen t a t i ve

three

to

cla s s

for

is

the

The final

commona l i t y
for

(4)

and

determining
economica l

and

whether the named p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m and the c l a ss c l a i ms are so
interrel a t ed

that

the

i n t erests

of

the

c l a ss members w i l l

be

fairly and adequa tel y pro tected i n their a bsen ce . '" Broussard v .
Meineke

Discount

C ir.

1998 )

147 ,

157

bears

Mu f f ler

( quot ing

n . 13

Gregory

v.

Gen .

( 1 98 2 ) )

the burden

of

Finova

Shops ,
Tel.

I nc. ,
Co .

of

155
Sw .

F. 3 d

337

( 4 th

Fa l con,

v.

3 3 1,

4 57

U . S.

( a l t erat i ons in orig i n a l ).
proving a l l

the

Capi t a l Corp . ,

442

The pla i n t i f f

requi remen t s o f
F . 3d

188,

190

Rule 2 3 .
( 4 th

Cir .

2 00 6 ) .
In

addit i on

cert i fies
c l a i ms,

a

to

those

c lass a c t ion

i ssues,

or

requi remen t s ,

must

def ine

defenses . "

Fed .

" [a] n

order

the c l a ss and
R.

Civ .

P.

tha t

the class

2 3 ( c) ( 1 ) ( B ) .

"' [ T]he defini t ion o f the c l ass is an essent i a l prerequ isite t o
ma int a i n i ng a cl ass a c t i on . '"
LLC ,
I nc . ,

3 0 7 F . R. D.

18 3 ,

5 5 0 F. 2 d 1 343 ,

19 6

(E.D.

1348

So ut ter v .
Va.

( 4th Cir.

2 0 1 5)

Equ i f a x I nfo .

Servs . ,

( quoti ng Roman v .

1 9 7 6)) .

ESB,

The Court should not

cert i f y a class u n l ess " i t is admi n i stra t i vel y feasi b l e for the
court t o determine whet h er a p a rtic u l a r i nd i vi du a l is a member . "
EQT

Prod . ,

ot her words,

76 4

F . 3d

at

358

( i ntern al

quotations

omitted ) .

In

" Ru l e 2 3 conta ins a n i mplicit t hresh ol d requ i rement

t h a t t he members o f a proposed class be rea d i l y i dent i f i able . "
Id .

( in t erna l

qu ot a t ions

omi tted ) .

ascertainab i l i t y requ i rement . I d .

11

This

is

known

as

the

Ascertainabil ity

A.

To cert i f y a c la s s under Rule 2 3 ,
"rea d i l y

i den t i f y

cr iteria . "

EQT

Moore et a l . ,
(class

the

Prod . ,

7 64

mu s t

practicable st andards
of

members

F . 3d

at

in

ref erenee

3 5 8;

s ee

the

provide

court

w i th

for determining who

cl a s s " } .

"The

p l a in t i ff [ ]

to

also

Moo re's Federal Pra c t ice § 2 3 . 2 1[1]

def i n i t ion

member

class

a court mu s t be able to

is

5

object ive
James

(3d ed .

need

2016}

"t angib le

and who
not

Wm .

and

is not a

be

able

to

ident ify every cla s s member at the t ime o f cert i f icat ion. But if
cla s s

members

are

ind iv i dua l ized

impo s s ible

fact - f ind i ng

to

or

i den t i f y

without

'mi n i-tri a l s , '

extens i ve

then

a

class

act ion i s inappropri a te . " E QT Prod . , 7 6 4 F . 3d a t 3 5 8 .
Branch

argues

a s cert a inabi l i t y

that

the

requ iremen t

pu t a t ive

because

class

object ive

s a t i s f ies
c riteria

t he

def ine

the cl a s s , and GEICO does not contes t t h i s a s s ert ion .
GEI CO has a cknowledged t h a t i t i s a b l e t o iden t i f y ,
fact

has

" Fa i l "

a lrea dy

grade

ba ckground
Cama cho

cl ients,
Deel .
names ,

bec a u s e

report s

Deel . � 8 ;

ma int a ins

da t a

i dentified ,

applicant s

of

the

crimi na l

during

t he

relevant

id . ,

con t a i ned

includ ing GEI CO ,

( EC F No .

the

7 1 - 6} � 2 .

Att a chment
in

A.

bac kground

who

recei ved

his t ories
time

GIS

reports

on

period .

also

and in

their
Supp l .

co l l ect s

for a l l

a

of

and
it s

and that dat a is acces s ib l e . Truesda l e
Those report s cont a in t h e appl i ca n t s '

and ca n be f iltered to view only those reports that were

12

ma rked " Review" by G I S a nd then assi gned a "Fa i l " grade by GEI CO
for

part icular

reasons.

I d . Cj[Cj[ 3-4 ;

Supp l .

Ca macho

Deel . � 8 .

Therefore , the class i s read i l y a scert ainable .
Rul e 23(a) (1) Numerosity

B.

The fi rst of the Rule 2 3 ( a )
is so nume rous t h a t
Fed.

R.

Civ.

ma i n t a i n

a

P.

jo i nder

requ i reme n ts i s that "the c l a ss

of a l l

2 3 ( a ) (1 ) .

c l a ss

'' ' No

a c t i o n'"

under

"'applicat ion o f t h e ru l e

members i s

specified
Fed .

R.

impract i ca bl e . "

numbe r
Civ .

i s t o b e considered

P.

726

F . 2d

136,

Newpo rt News Gen.
( 4 t h Ci r.

1967 )

&

145

( 4 th

Ci r .

198 4 )

N onse c t a r i a n Hosp .

(fi nd i ng

that

fu lfi ll t h e n ume rosi t y requi rement } ) .
of

fact o rs

in

co nside ring

Cypress

375 F . 2d 64 8 ,

18

w a s suffic i e nt

joi nde r

is

312

F. R.D .

407 ,

to

practicable

f aci li ty

of

ma king se rvice on

them if jo ined and t h e i r geographic dispersion . " Thomas v .
LLC,

653

ease of ide n t i fying i t s numbers

and determ i n i ng t h e i r a ddr esse s,

USA ,

v.

''Courts consider a number

whe t h e r

incl uding the si ze of the c l a ss ,

r a t he r ,

Thurston Motor

( qu o t i ng

Ass'n ,

a c l a ss o f

23;

to

i n l i ght of the

pa rticular ci rcumst a nces of the case. '" Brady v.
Lines,

i s needed

416

(E. D.

Va .

2 0 1 6)

FTS

(interna l

quot a t ions omi t ted ) .
GEICO
the

has

relevant

produ ced

a

t i me perio d ,

sp readsheet
the

i nd i c a t ing

repo rts of

426

that ,

dur ing

individua l s were

assi gned a "Fa i l " g r a de based on c r i mi n a l h i st o r y a t some point
in

the

appl i ca t ion

process .

Suppl.

13

Cama cho

Deel . Cj[ 8 . a .

GEI CO

arg ues tha t this

is

the relevant number here .

B ranch ,

contends that the spreadsheet is inadmis s ib l e hearsa y .

however,
I t relies

in stead on a statement by G E I CO ' s counsel at oral argument that
approximately 40 0 individuals were a s s igned a " Fa il " grade based
on

their

crimina l

cons idered

and

Judgment

Op .

h is tories .

rejected
at

As

noted ,

Branch's

8 - 2 0.

the

Court

hears a y

a rgument .

Bra nch

Therefore,

previous l y

can

Summa ry

s atisfy

the

numero sity requirement by reference to the spreads heet .
C.

Rule 23(a) (2) Commonal ity

Rule 2 3 (a) ( 2 )
fact

common

to

requires that there be " questions of

the

cla s s . "

Fed .

commonality requ irement " turn [s]
app l icable
Califano v .

in

the

Yama sa ki ,

mean merel y tha t
of

the

c l a ims .
of

s a me
.

ma nner

4 42 U . S .

provis ion
upon

of
a

res olution . "

question

wi l l

to

ea ch

682 ,

centra l

350) .

Furthermore ,

701

law, "

but

that

violation

that

that is

at

350 .

question

" their
" capabl e

"A

s ingle

''mu st be

of

'wil l res o l ve an is s ue tha t

each

7 64 F . 3d at 3 6 0

U .S .

class . "

''This does not

ins tead

5 64

The

[ or fact)

the

s uffered a

Dukes ,

but

l aw
of

( 1 97 9} .

contention "

suffice, "

2 3 {a ) ( 2 } .

of

common

t o the v a l idity o f

stroke. ' " EQT Prod . ,

P.

member

have a l l

s uch a nature tha t its determina tion
is

C iv.

on ques tions

[ cl a s s members]

. depend

c l a s swide

common

s ame

R.

law or

o n e of

the

c l a ims

( quoting Dukes ,

i n one

5 64 U . S . at

" [ m] inor fa ctual va ria nces " do not prevent a

plaintiff from showing common a l i ty a s

14

long a s

the c l a ims arise

from the s ame set o f facts a nd the puta t i ve c l a s s member s rely
on

F . R . D . 5 60, 567

Tra n s u rban

v.

Brown

theory .

the s ame legal

318

Inc . ,

USA ,

( E . D . Va . 2 0 16 ) .

Bra nch a s serts that there a re common ques tions because the
puta tive

class

member s '

background check proces s .

c l a ims

all

is

an

a dvers e

a c tion;

acti on notice wa s timely,

from

GEICO's

uni form

Bra nch speci f i c a l l y c i tes three common

ques tion s that mu s t be res olved:
g rade

f l ow

(1)

(2)

and

(3)

whether a s s ig n i n g a " Fa il "

whether

GEICO ' s

pre-a dver se

whether GEICO acted w i l l fu l l y

i n violating the FCRA.
The

Court

question

of

As s 'n,
2 015);

312
No .

con s i s ten tl y

whether

1 681b ( b ) ( 3) ( A )
Thoma s ,

ha s

defendant' s

sati s fies

F. R . D.

at

3 :1 4 CV2 3 8 ,

Mi lbourne

a

v.

held

the

4 18 ;

common a l i ty

Ma nuel

v.

JRK

Res i den ti a l

the Court

noted

the

about i ts

" s tandardi zed"
4 1 3,

Mi lbourne,

2 014

4 18 ;
WL

i tsel f,

v i o l a ted

the

Section
See

requirement.

Wel l s

Fa rgo

Bank,

Nat' l

2 015 WL 4 994 5 4 9, a t *11 ( E.D . Va . Aug .

a t *6 (E.D . Va. Oct.

at

by

actions

2 0 1 4 WL 5 5 2 973 1 ,

F.R. D.

tha t ,

importance o f
background

Ma nuel ,

5 5 2 973 1 ,

Am.,

31,

ea ch

WL

*2 ,

*6 .

2014 ) .

15

3 : 1 2 CV86 1 ,

I n those cases,

defend a n t' s

4 994 5 4 9 ,
Simi l a r l y,

ha s a cknowledged tha t i t used the Ad j ud i ca tion
app l i ca n ts dur i n g the cla s s per i od .

No .

check proces s .

2 0 15

at

LLC,

1 9,

admis s i ons
Thoma s ,

at

*2 ,

here ,

Proces s

312
*12 ;

GE I CO

f o r all

The facts o f
There,

the

sat i sf i ed

Cou r t
for

a

t h i s case closely
found

that

simila r

the

resemble

t hose i n Manuel .

commonali t y

subclass

to

requ i rement

Branch ' s

put a t ive

was
class

because defendan t a u t oma t i call y sen t a pre-adverse a c t ion not i ce
to

each

class
and

empl oymen t ,
t h roughout
G E I CO

has

t h roughout

that

because

a dmi t t ed
the

to

class

coded

a

2015

i nel i g ible
were

WL

nea rly

Therefore ,

G E I CO's

as

procedu res

Manuel,

usi ng

per iod .

whet her

was

these

the class per i od .

of

quest i on

member

"st a ndard"

4 9 9 4 5 4 9,
i den t i cal

as

in

at

*11.

process

Manuel,

v i o l ated

act i o ns

for

the

Sect i on

168 1 b ( b ) ( 3 ) ( a ) sa t isf ies the commona l i t y requ i rement. 5
Branch also po i n t s t o GEICO' s wi llfulness in v i o l a t i ng the
FCRA as a common quest ion. The Court has held that this quest i o n
is

a

common

one

when

"(t ] here

is

no

cont en t i on

that

[Defendan t ' s) st ate of mind as to individual consumers va ried in
any wa y . "

Id .

at

*

10

(interna l quo t a tions omi t t ed ) .

GE I CO has

not presented any evi dence that it s st ate o f mind varied in any
way

during

the

class

per i od.

W i llf ulness

is

t herefore

a lso

a

common quest i on here .

5

Th i s i s t rue desp i t e the factual differences between B ra n ch ' s
applicat i o n and those of the put a t i ve class members . See Brown ,
3 18 F . R . D . a t 5 6 7 . These d ifferences , a lt hough compelling , a re
bet ter d iscussed i n connect ion wi t h the mo re dema nding Rule
2 3 (b)( 3 ) predomi nance requ i rement . See Comca st , 5 6 9 U . S . at 3 4 .
16

D.

Rule 23(a) (3)

The

t ypica l i t y

Typicality

element

requ ires

that

"the

cla ims

or

defen ses of the representa t i ve parties are t yp i ca l of the claims
or defen ses of the c l a s s . " Fed.
Circu i t

has

exp l a i ned

''p l a i nti f f ' s

c l a im

t ha t ,

cannot

absent c l a s s members t h a t
pl a i n t i f f ' s
Micro s oft

pro o f
Corp .

Nonetheles s ,

of

to

be

Civ .

P.

s a t i s fy

so

2 3 ( a ) ( 3) .

this

d i f ferent

The Fourt h

requi rement ,

from

t he

t he

c l a ims

of

their cla ims w i l l not be adva nced by
own

[ her]

436

,

R.

4 61 ,

F . 3d

c l a im . "

individu a l

( 4 th

4 6 6-67

Dei ter

v.

2 0 0 6).

Cir .

"p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a im a nd the c l a ims o f cla s s members

[need not] be perfect l y ident i c a l or perfect l y a l igned , " a s long
as " the vari a t ion in cla ims (does not]

s tr i ke[]

at the heart o f

the respec t i ve causes o f act ions . " I d . at 4 6 7 .
The

t yp i c a l ity

pla int i f fs '
members . "

cla ims

Id .

a n a l ysis

"invo lves [ s ]

or defen ses

T o conduct

with

a

those

that ana l ys i s ,

c ompari s on

of

of

t he absent

t he Court must

w i t h a review o f the elemen t s o f p l a i n t i f f['s]

the

cl a s s
"begi n

prirna facie ca s e

a nd the facts on w h i ch t h e pla i nt i f f wou l d neces sarily rel y t o
prove

i t. "

Id.

The

di s t rict

court

mu s t

then

determi ne

"the

ext ent t o whi ch those f a c t s would a l s o prove the cla ims o f the
absent c l a s s members . "
have

found

typica l i ty

Id.
if

Under t h i s
the

framewor k ,

cla ims

or

" 'many courts

defen ses

of

the

represen t a t ives a nd the members of the c l a s s s tern from a s i ngl e
event

or

a

u n i t ary

course o f

conduct . ' "

17

Pl o t n i ck

v.

Comput er

Sc i s .

Corp .

5 7 3,
R.

582

Deferred Comp .

P l a n for Key Execs . ,

182 F.

Supp .

3d

( E . D . Va . 2 0 1 6) (quo t i ng 7A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur

M i l ler & Mary Ka y Ka ne,

&

Federa l Pract ice

Proc. § 1764

(3d

ed . 2 0 0 5}) .
Branch argues t h a t h er c l a im i s t yp i c a l bec a use,
class member,

she must demonstrate t h a t

1 6 8 1 b ( b} (3 ) (A)
providing
claim

and

Indeed ,
" there

from
is

Branch
was

handled

it

a ssigned

the

her with

arises

Process,

No.

when

required

GEICO ' s

thus

not h i ng

a

'atypical

of
to

GEI CO

GEICO v i o l a t ed Sec t i on

a

" Fa i l "

documents .

use

i den t i c a l

st a t es,

her

its

grade

t he

c l a ss
has

un i que

without

Moreover ,

st andard

emp loyee
or

l ike every

Branch s
/

Ad j ud i cation

members'

c l a ims .

a cknowledged that

about

the

way

. Branch ' s background check process . '" Pl . Mern .

67 )

at

17

( quot in g

GEICO

3 0 (b ) ( 6)

Dep .

{ EC F No .

GEI CO
(EC F

67-1 )

at

90: 3 - 6 ) .
GEI CO

makes

two

argument s

in

response .

First,

the

only

adverse act ion in t h i s case occurred when GEI CO sent the Adverse
Act i o n Let ter,
a

" Fa il"

and more t han 2 5% o f the a ppli cants who recei ved

grade because

grades changed to
letter .

Second,

of

" Pa ss"

their

crimi nal

or "No Grade"

facts

before GEI CO

had
sent

thei r
that

even i f t h e " Fa i l " grade could be construed a s

GEICO' s f inal decision i n some cases,
of

hist ories

that

would

allow

18

t here i s " n o typi cal set

t he

j ury

to

uni formly

Branch ' s

tes t .
7 1}

a dverse act ion

Def.

Opp .

( EC F No .

at 2 3 .
G E I CO' s

f irs t

putat ive class
their

a rgument

mi s interpret s

members were a s s ig ned a

criminal

proces s,

which

his t ories

at

t he

app l i cant

ba ckground

s ome

f a i l ed

report .

Branch

Bra n ch's

cl a i m .

po i n t

in

t he

appl icat ion

t he Pre-Adverse Ac t i on

and then the Adverse Act ion Let ter
to

dispute

contends

t he

that

content s

the

a dverse

of

of

the Adverse Act ion

w i t h that pos i t ion .
Court

to

decide

Yet

it

again

considered
Judgment

found
an

Op .

whet her

that

a dver s e
at

G E I CO

clear l y

in

not the

disa grees

i t s argument here es s en t i a l l y as ks the

adverse a c t ion under the FCRA .
beca u s e

Let t er .

the

action

tha t proces s was GE I CO ' s a s s ig nment o f the " Fa i l " grade,
sendi ng

All

" Fa i l " g rade beca u s e of

t riggered the s ending o f

Lett er to ea ch cla s s member,
if

t heory. "

a

" Fa i l "

g rade

is

an

The Court den ied summary judgmen t

a s s igning
a c t ion

32-34.

a s s ign i n g

a

" Fa i l "

gra de

cou ld

in

cert a i n

s i t u a t i on s .

Accept ing

GE I CO ' s

argument

be

Summa ry

here

would

requ i re the Court t o reverse that conc l u s i on .
However,

GE I CO ' s

second

cha l lenge t o cert i f i c a tion .
requirement
proces ses
absent
Manuel ,

met

were

cla s s
2 0 15

in

members .

ca ses

i dent i ca l l y
See,

4 99454 9 ,

po ses

The Cou rt h a s

s imi l a r

app l i ed

WL

a s sert ion

e.g. ,
at

*14 .

19

because
to

the

Thoma s ,
In

a

mo re

seri o u s

found the t ypica l i t y
defendan t s '
p l a i nt i f f s
312

those

F . R. D .
cases ,

hi rin g
and

the

at

419 ;

the

FCRA

so

themselves ,

the hiring pro ces ses

were rel a t ed to

vio l a tion s

t he pl aintiffs' and c l a s s members' claims c o u l d t h u s b e s aid t o

at

3d

Supp .

. a unit a r y course o f conduc t . "

.

\\s t em from .

F.
t he

the Court h a s recogn ized t hat GEI CO' s Adj udica t ion

other h and,

Pro ces s is not inheren t l y flawed ,
legitima t e

on

Here,

omit t ed } .

quota tions

( in t erna l

582

182

Plotnick,

opportun i t y

to

becaus e it gives applicants a

cure

thei r

\\Fail "

grades .

Indeed ,

GEICO' s records show t h a t many puta t ive c l a s s members have done
so .

Summary Judgment

indicated

that

a

Op .

GEICO

at

2 9-31.

employee ,

N oneth eles s ,
Pa r ker,

o ther evidence

mig h t

have

devia ted

from the Adjudica t ion Proces s by res cinding Branch's condit iona l
o ffer

of

emp lo yment

period expired.
this

case,

it self ,

if

but

during

Id . a t 3 2 .
any ,

a

cal l

I n ot her words ,

s t emmed

rat her

tel ephone

not

from

before

the

cure

t he FCRA viola t ion in

the Adj udic a t ion

from t he individu al ized

applica tion

Proces s
of

t he

Adj udica t ion Proces s t o Branch .
This dis t inction

a f fec t s

will prove t heir c l a ims .
cannot

es tablish

a

showing o nly t h a t
documen t s
report .
actua l l y

before
To

t he

s ent

viola t ion

a s s ig ning
contra ry,
Bra n ch ' s
the

and

the cla s s members

Fo r t he rea s ons det ailed above ,
of

GEICO did not

res ci nded

before G E I CO

how B ranch

a

Sec tion

s he
job

gra de

mu st
o f fer

Adverse Act ion

20

168 lb (b} (3 } { A}

provide her with

\\ Fail "

also
when

Branch

to

t he requ i red

her

prove
t hey

by

bac kground

t hat
spo ke ,

Let ter-t hereby

Par ker
wel l

depriving

any

of

Branch

had

emp loyees

GEICO

that

3 1 8 F. R . D .

Brown ,

cla ims,

members besides Branch .
to

po i n t

their

a t 5 67 ,

because there is no ev i dence

Consequent l y ,

class

any

simi l a r conversat ions w i t h

interaction s

own

members'

c l a ss

ot her

these

Proving

gra de .

" Fa i l "

her

in

the def i ciency

cure

advance"

"necessa ri l y

not

wou l d

fa cts

the

to

led

that

h i st ory

criminal

to

opportun i ty

rea l

t hose c l a ss members must
cure

the

during

GEICO

w i th

period promised by the Adjudicat ion Process to demonstrate that

are

cla ims

therefore

heart of the [ ir]
at

{affirming

1 9 93 )

determination
of

of

the

absen t

enough

to

and

substa ntial

B o l ey v .

Brown,
of

den i a l
l i a b i l i ty

\\

10

F . 3d

2 18 ,

223

[wa] s dependen t upon

has

not

d i sti n ctions,

Branch

at

the

4 3 6 F. 3 d
( 4 th

certific a ti on

class

each

these

members'

class

"stri ke[]

the u n i que circumst a nces pertinent t o

Given

The fa ctual

respective causes of act ion . " Dieter ,

see a l so

4 66;

Branch ' s

between

differences

cure .

real chance to

them a

GEICO did not a fford

Ci r .
where

considera ti o n

class member" ) .
sa t i sfied

the

typ i ca l i ty requ i rement .
E.

Rul e 23(a) (4) Adequacy of Representation

The adequa cy of representa tion prong of Rule 2 3 ( a) requires
the Court to be sati sf i ed th at " the representa tive parties w i l l
fa i rl y and adequ a tel y protect t h e interests o f the class . " Fed .
R.

Civ .

P.

23 (a) ( 4 ) .

This

standard

is

met

if

" the

named

pla intiff does not have in terests antagoni st i c to those of the

21

and .

cla s s [ , ]

primary

of

purpos e

interest

between

of

l i t i ga t i on."

quo t a ti on s

omi t t ed) .
con flic t s

"to

uncover

the

clas s

t hey

521

U. S.

W i nds o r ,

v.

Inc .

seek
591 ,

The
of
to
625

For a de fenda n t to meet i t s bu rden in s howing inadequacy

repre sent ati on ,

specu l a t i ve
Inc . ,

the

and

p a rtie s

Prods . ,

qua l i f ied,

is

e l emen t

this

n amed

represen t . " Amchem
( 19 97) .

( i nte rnal

567

at

F.R . D .

3 18

Brown ,

condu ct

to

able

genera l l y

a nd

expe r i enced,

are

a t t o rneys

. p l ai nt i f f ' s

.

348

or

"a

conflict

( 4 th C i r .

4 30

be

mo re

v.

Gunnells

hypothe t i ca l.' "

F . 3d 4 17,

' must

than

Hea l t hplan

mere l y
Se rvs . ,

( quot i ng Moore et a l . ,

20 0 3 )

s upra , § 23 . 25[4 ] [ b](i i ]) .
Branch's
condu ct

this

repre senta t ion .
we l l

as

couns e l

is

l i t i g at ion

qual i fi e d ,
so

as

to

expe r i e nced,
prov i de

cons ume r

Deel .

abl e

and

a dequate

Cou n s e l i s experi enced i n c l a s s act ion work ,
protect i on

i s s ue s ,

and

t h i s Court and others a s cla s s coun s e l
Bennett

full

and

( ECF

No .

4 2-3 ) 'II 10;

ha s

been

a pproved

in numerous

Ke l l y

Deel.

to

as
by

case s . 6 Se e

{ EC F

No .

42-

4 ) 'II 9 . GEICO doe s not cont end otherw i s e .
Branch argues

that

s he

adequate l y

repre s e n t s

the proposed

cla s s because she h a s n o i n t e re s t s antagon i s t i c to those o f the
6 Howeve r , GEICO not e s that the dec l a rations s ubmit ted in suppo rt
of c l a s s cert i f i cat i on by Branch's couns e l on l y account for five
of the n i ne la wye r s t h a t have appea red on Bran ch' s beha l f. I t
argues t hat the other four at t orne ys s h ou l d not be appoi nted a s
c l a s s coun s e l be cause the Court l a cks any in forma t i on about
their qua l i fica t i on s .
The abs ence of de c l a rations by those
attorneys precl udes t h e i r appo i n tment as c l a s s couns e l .

22

by

document s ,

communicated

depos e d .

Fin a l l y ,

f requen t l y

with

her

over

t urn ing

and

i n t e r roga t o r i e s

answering

dis covery

in

pa rti cipated

also

has

She

v i gorous l y .

l i t i gation

this

and has pursued

has coope rated with h e r couns e l ,

propose d c l a s s ,

coun s e l ,

and been

Bra n ch and the absent c l a s s members have the

same i nte rest i n e s t a b l i s h i ng GEICO's liabil ity.

GEICO s imi l a r l y

doe s not conte s t t he s e a s s e rtions .
final

interests
Branch ' s
for

t he

n.1 5

with

class

f a i l u r e to
adequa cy

(" [ I] f

a

adequate.u ) ;

typ i c a l ,

she

establ i s h

p l a i ntif f
B.

2 013)

may

is

not

typi ca l ity

requ irement .

Wi l l i am

§ 3:57 ( 5th ed .

membe r s

See

is

e n t ir e l y

can

Seut t er,

not

Rubens t e i n ,

ove r l appin g

Bra nch's

about

a s s e rtion

abs ent

Branch ' s

have
307

typica l ,
Newbe rg

imp l i c a t ions

F . R. D .
she

on

at

210

cannot

be

Class

Med.

Indeed,
any,
g i ven

Sys . ,

a s not e d ,

Act i ons

( "If a cla s s repres e ntative's c l aim is not

not

have

the

motiva t ion

or

incentives

adequate ly pu r s ue the cla ims o f othe r cla s s rnembe r s . u
re Arn .

correct .

I nc.,

75

F.3d 1 0 6 9 ,

1083

t he abs ent c l a s s members '

to

( citing In

( 6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 6) ) ) .
FCRA v i o lations ,

if

qui t e l i ke l y resu lted f rom di f ferent acti ons t han Branch's ,
that

GEI CO

a l l egedl y

i gnored

the

Adjudic a t i on

Proce s s'

cure per iod requi rement when dea l i ng wit h Bra nch. Thu s ,

Branch's

interests are not exactly a l igned with those of the absent cla s s
members.

23

these diffe rences do not preclud e Branch from

Noneth e l e s s ,

is

t he absent clas s membe r s .

Amchem Prods . ,

requ i rement

this

i ntere s t " between the

of

''conflic t s

avoi d

to

of

prima ry pu rpose

The

e s tabli s h i ng a dequacy .

p l a i nti f f

Even

625 .

5 21 U . S. at

and

though Branch may have s omewh a t d i f ferent mot i v a t ions here than
the ab sent class membe r s ,
as

Brown ,

adequa cy .
U . S.

318 F . R . D.

i nf l at ion-protected

fund

fo r the

would

defeat

s ee al s o Amchem Prods . ,

where

payment s , "

immedi a t e

"generous

as

cla s s , "

the

at 5 67;

s hown

( conf l i ct

626

at

of

those

to

"antagonistic

her i ntere s t s c a nno t be cha racte r i zed

some

and

clas s

others

members

sought

"an

ampl e ,

sought

futu re"} . I t

521

a ppe a r s tha t

she

i s ju st a s int e re s t ed a s any ot her c l a s s membe r in es tab l i s hi ng
GEI CO's li abili ty,

given the e f fect that GEICO's adve rse a c t i o n

may have had o n h e r . Any confl icts th at mi ght e x i s t a r e thus, a t
t h i s stage ,
F . 3d at

"me r e l y specu l a t i ve o r hypot hetica l . " Gunnell s ,

4 30

( i nterna l

quo t a t i ons omi t t ed} .

As

a

resu lt ,

34 8

Branch

is a n adequate c l a s s represent a t ive .
Rule 23(b) (3)

III.

To be cert i f i e d ,
of

the

class

unde r

Rule

Court

'1

the cla s s mus t a l s o s a t i s fy at

catego r i e s

23 (b} ( 3} ,

as

d e f i ned

in

Branch seeks ,

Ru l e
is

f i nds t h a t the que s t i ons of l aw or

23 ( b) .

l e a s t one

Ce rti f i cati on

appropriat e where the
fa c t common to clas s

memb e r s predomi na te ove r a ny que s t i ons a f fecting onl y individua l
members,

a nd t h at a c l a s s act ion i s s uperior to other a vail ab l e

24

cont rovers y . 11 Fed. R . C iv.

P. 2 3 ( b) ( 3).

Predominance

A.

Unde r Rul e 2 3 (b) (3 ) ,
2 3 ( a) ( 2)

"must

indi v i dua l
common

the common quest i ons found under Rule

predomi nate

membe r s . "

que s t i ons

sepa rate

ove r

Amchem

Prods.,

predomin a t e

inqu i r y ,

di s t i n ct

any

over

f ram

que s t ions
52 1

the

3 05

2013)

Cir .

requi rement
U. S.

is
at

34 ,

a nd

Du kes ,

"tests

564

whether

6 15 .

Ru l e

to

F.

521 U . S .

at 623 .

at

359) .

2 3 ( b) (3)' s

common a l i t y-predominance

ra t her than quant i t a t ive.
F . App'x 2 6 7 ,
4 2 9) .

272

/1

(4 t h Cir .

In other words ,

St i l lmock v .

Th i s

2 3 ( a ), " Comca s t ,
classes

a re
by

The C ourt cannot jus t

examine whet he r common que s t ions outnumber noncommon ones ,
" Ru l e

a

App'x 2 9 9 ,

a djudicat ion

wa rrant

Amchem,

"is

found in Rule

51 4

U. S.

on l y

Whether

que st ions

propo s ed

cohe s ive
/1

at

I nc.,

"even more dema nding t han

suff icien t l y
represen t a t ion ,

( c i t ing

a f fecting

requ i reme n t s

Pin ke rton Gov't Se rvs . ,

( 4t h

U. S.

indi vi dua l

2 3 ( a) . " Ealy v .

56 9

the

a d judi c a t ing

e f fic i e n t l y

and

fairly

for

me thods

test

is

quali t a t ive

We i s M a r ke t s ,

2 0 10) (citing Gunnells ,

s i n ce

Inc . ,

348

385

F . 3d at

Rule 2 3 ( b)( 3 ) "compa res t he qua l ity o f the

common que s t ions to those of the noncommon que s t ions . " N ewberg,
s upra , § 3:27 .
If the " qu a l i t a t i ve l y ove rarching i s s ue"
is common ,
resolve

i n t he l i t i gation

a cla s s ma y be ce rti fied no t w i t hstanding the need to

indiv idu a l i zed

i s sues .

Ealy,

25

51 4

F.

App'x

at

3 05 .

Fo r

example,

i f '' ' commo n que s t i ons predomina t e

court s

then

genera l l y

f i nd

rega rdi ng l i ab i l i t y ,

t h e p redominance

requi rement

to b e

satis fied even i f i ndi v i du a l damages i s sues rema i n . ' " St i l lmoc k ,

Inc . ,

3 2 3 F . 3d 3 2 ,

cert i f ica t i on
t ime ,

in

e f fort ,

40

( 1s t Cir .

s uch

cases

wi l l
a nd

dec i s i on a s

t o persons

procedural

f a i rne s s

re s u l t s . " Gunne l l s ,

still

" achi eve

promote .

s imi l a r l y s i t u a t e d ,
or

Mob i l e

Be ll

Sw .

Sys . ,

2 0 0 3 } ) . T h i s mak e s s ense becau s e

e xpens e,

and

v.

Smi l ow

( quoting

273

App'x at

F.

385

of

w i t hout

sacr i f i c ing

other

unde s i r abl e

about

bringing

of

. uni formi ty

.

economi e s

3 4 8 F . 3d at 4 24 .

Branch a s s e r t s that t he predomina nt i s s ues in t h i s c a s e a re
whe t her

GE ICO ' s

Adjudi c a t ion

requ i rement s and,
FCRA was

i f no t,

wi l l ful .

She

Pro ce s s

satisfies

the

FCRA' s

whether i t s fa i l u re t o comp l y w i t h the

c l a ims

that:

t hese

is sues

ma y be de cided

uni formly for all c l a s s members w i t h vi rtually i dent i ca l proof.
In

re spons e ,

Proce s s

GE ICO

complies

establ ish
Branch ' s

wit h

GEICO ' s

cont ends
the

Se ction

own appl i ca t i on

t hat ,

FCRA ,

because

the

sole

t he

Adjudi c a t i on

evidence

1 6 8 lb ( b ) ( 3 } (A) v i o l a t ion
to

GEICO .

Conse quent l y ,

tha t
is

it

cou l d

b a s ed o n
says ,

t he

Court would need to conduct s i mi l a r indi v i du a l i zed inquir ies to
det e rmine

when

GE ICO

t ook

adve rse

act ion

as

to

each

clas s

member. 7

7

For inst ance , ''did other appl i cant s
communi cated
rescis s ions?
If
so,
26

receive phone ca l l s that
did
those
individua l s

GEICO

is

correct

that

Branch

predominance requirement h e re .
the

adjudica t i on of

Branch ,

72)

at

3.

f a iled

someo ne's

. or it is not"
The

to

sati sfy

t he

Branch's a s s e rtion that "[e]i ther

' Fa i l ' ba s ed on

i s a n adve rse act ion
{ ECF No .

has

central

criminal h is tory

is m i s t aken. Pl .

common que s t ion,

Reply

according

to

i s whe t h e r GE I CO took a n adverse a c t i o n a s to e a c h cla s s

membe r when it a s s i gned t h e i r report s a "Fa i l" grade be caus e o f
the

crimi nal

h i s tory .

But ,

as

noted,

that

que s t ion

cannot

a n swe red by look i ng at t he Adj udica t ion Proce s s i t s elf .
the

adve r s e

actio n

inquiry

nece s s a r i ly

i n volves

be

I n ste ad,
examining

GEICO's conduct with e a ch indi v i dua l aft e r a s s i g n i ng the "Fail"
grade s ,

t o de c i de whet her GEICO comp! ied w i t h t he Adjudicat ion

Proc e s s '

requi reme n t

re s c i nded

un t il

conclus ion

the

fol l ows

that
end
from

condi t ional

of

th e

the

job

s even-da y
Court ' s

o f fe r s

cure

not

per iod .

acknowledgeme nt

8

be
Th a t
that

a s s igning a "Fa i l" g rade do es n o t vi olate Se ct i o n 1 6 8 1b ( b) (3 ) (A )
unle s s

an

appli cant

is ,

contra r y

to

the

Adj udi cat i on

Proce s s ,

neve rthele s s a t t empt t o di s pute the repo rt? What wa s the out come
of that di spute? D i d the i ndi v i ctual rece i ve a grade change to
'Pa s s '? Or did t h e appli cant s imply de c i de t o wit hdraw from
con s iderat ion, result i ng i n a f i nal grade of ' No Gra de'?" De f .
Opp . at 2 1 .
8

O f cou r s e , not a ll conduct a fter t he "Fa i l" g rade i s a s s i gned
is releva n t here . For i n s tance , wh ether cla s s members ' grades
were even tually changed t o "Pa s s " or "No Grade" is imma t e r ial to
Bran ch's t h eory that GEICO took adv e r s e a c t i o n when it a s s i gned
the " Fa i l " grade s , s i nce the adve r s e ac t i o n would h ave a l re ady
occurred by the t ime GEICO cha nged t ho s e cla s s membe rs' g rade s .
27

that

"qua l i ta t i ve l y

the

n a rrowe r ,

the

is

here

i s s ue"

ove rarching

wheth e r

a c t ion ,

adve rse

an

is

grade

"Fa i l"

a

as sig n ing

a l though

ques t i on

common

a

as

i dent i f i e s

correctl y

Thu s ,

2 8 -3 3 .

at

Op .

Judgmen t

Summa ry

See

gra de .

Branch

opportu n i t y t o cure the de f i ciency c a u si n g

l e gi t ima te

den ied a

individua l i zed ques t i o n o f wh ether c l a s s memb e r s i n fact had a
5 1 4 F.

legit imate opportunit y to cure their "Fa i l" grades. Ealy,
App'x at 3 0 5 .
In
when

Branch ' s

Pa r ke r

case ,

ca l l ed

the

Branch

potent i a l
and

condi t i onal offer wa s r e s c i nded,
cure

pe riod

poi n t s
from

by

to no evidence

the

re s u l t ,

promi s ed

interac tions

a l legedly

act i o n

told

her

occurred
that

her

depri v i ng her o f the legi t imate

Ad jud i ca t i on

Proce s s .

Yet

Branch

s ugg e s t ing that GEICO s im i l a r l y deviated

Adj udi cat ion
the

the

adverse

Proce s s

Cou rt

would

need

with

GEICO

to

with
to

other

class

con s i der

det ermine

each

when ,

if

membe rs .
class
at

As

a

members '

all,

GEICO

den ied them a chance to f i x the i r crimi n a l h i s t o r i e s be fore the
cu re

pe riod e xp i red.

nece s s a r y
whether

Re s o l v i ng

predicate
a s s ig n i ng

Accordi ngl y ,

this

to

a n swe r i n g

a

"Fa i l"

the

grade

ind i v idua l i zed
more
is

gen e r a l
an

i s s ue

que s t ion

adve r s e

ai:

615;

a
of

a ction .

tha t common que s t i o n doe s not "p redomi n a t e over a ny

que s t i on s a f fect i ng on l y i ndividual membe rs , " Amchem Prods . ,
U.S .

is

indeed ,

the

oppo s i te

is

true .

For

those

Branch has f a i led to meet the predomi nance requ i reme n t .

28

52 1

re a s ons,

GEICO' s additiona l a rgument regardi ng Arti c l e III standing
further
class
doe s

i l lustrates

de finition .
not

the

As

p redomi nance

GEICO

automati cally

inve stigati on"

is

issues

a s s e rts,

v i o l ate

requ i red

to

p o s ed

a s s igning

the

FCRA ,

de t e rmine

a

by

B r a nch ' s

"Fa i l"

so

grade

"ca se-by- c a s e

wh ich

class

membe r s

s u f fered a "concrete inj u r y" s u f f ic i e nt to s ati s fy Article III.9
De f . Opp . a t 26.
A p l a i nti f f mus t h a ve

standing

in o rder

for the Court to

exe rc i se its jur i s diction over this c a s e unde r Arti cle II I .
v.

Inc.

Spokeo ,

o f the three
here ,

is

fact . "

s tanding

that the

Lujan

( quotation

Rob i ns ,

v.

ma rks

requirements ,

p l a inti f f

De f s .

of

omitte d ) .

prote cted

particulari zed'

and

"must

"To

'a ctu a l

hypotheti c a l . '" Spokeo ,

or

and the

504

that
imminent,

13 6 S. Ct. at 154 8

U . S. a t 5 6 0 ) . In a c l a s s action,

9

onl y one
an

5 55 ,

i njury

s u f f e red

The f i r s t

( 2016 ) .

U . S.

esta bl i s h

or she

i nte rest'

1 547

have s u f f e red

Wi l dl i fe ,

plainti ff mus t show that he
lega l l y

1540,

Ct.

136 S.

See

rel evant
injury

5 60
in

in

{ 1 992)
fact,

a

'an inva s i on o f a

is

'concrete

not

conjectura l

( quoting Lujan,

and
or
504

the s ta nding inquiry focus es on

T h i s c l a im i s b a s e d on the argument tha t B r a nch's u s e of Ru l e
viol ates the Ru l e s Enabling Act,
which s tate s tha t the
Fede ral Ru l e s o f C i vi! Procedure "sh a l 1 not a b ri dge , enl a rge or
mod i f y any sub stanti ve r i ght . " 28 U. S . C. § 2072 . But, a s noted
below ,
GEICO appe a r s to be highl ighting the s e Arti cle I I I
standi ng
conce rns
in
conne cti on
w i th
the
predominance
requ i rement . The re fore , the Court need not re s o l ve th e separate
que s tion o f whethe r B ranch has vio l a ted the Rul e s Enabl ing Act.
23

29

3 43

cause

nece s s a rily

an

FCRA

an

Fu rth e rmore,

2017 ) .

Cir .

( 4 th

Sol s . ,

Expe ria n Info .

plaintiff . " Dreher v.

8 5 6 F . 3d 3 3 7,

I nc . ,

does

not

\\ [ r]athe r ,

a

vio l ation

f act;

in

injury

named

the

by

made

in j u ry

pe r sona l

of

a l l egations

"the

con s titutional l y cognizable in fo rmationa l inju ry require s that a

and

entit l ed

lega l l y
a

creates

information

tha t

of

denia l

the

that

is

he

which

to

in formation

to

a cces s

l a ck

pe rson

' re a l ' h a rm with an a dve r s e e f fect . " I d . a t 3 4 5 ( quoting Spokeo ,
( emph a s is in origin a l ) .

1 3 6 S. Ct . a t 154 8 )
GE I CO
here ,

does

not

dis pute

that

B ran ch ,

the

named

p l a i ntiff

h a s s tanding . Nor could it-a s GEICO itse l f acknowledg e s ,

a

concrete inju ry exis t s if an employer ta ke s a dverse action unde r
Se ction

168 lb ( b) (3) ( A)

without

documen t s .

Se e Thoma s v .

( E. D .

20 1 6 ) .

Va .

And,

first

FTS USA,

LLC,

providing
193 F.

the

required

Supp. 3d 623 ,

Bra nch h a s a l l eged that GEICO

provide her with th e s e docume nts be fo re

638

fail ed to

i t too k a dve rse a c t ion

by a s signing her ba ckg round repor t a "Fa i l " grade.
I n s tead,
have

not

s u f fer ed

standing
"Pa s s "

GE ICO's a rgument is that s ome absent c l a s s membe r s
an

in ju ry

requirements
or

"No

be cause

Grade"

This

questions

remain about which

inj ury .

Thus ,

of

GEICO' s

wou l d

the i r

a fte r

a s s i gned.

l a ck

that

the

inj u ry

s a tis f y

grades

a r gument

30

is

were

cha nged
grade

t h a t many

cla s s membe r s
not

III' s

"Fa i l "

initia l

mea n s

Artic l e

wa s

individua lized

s u f fered a

that

to

the

concrete

Court

l a cks

jur i sdiction

over

tho s e

ab sent

estab l i s h Arti c l e I I I sta nding ,
that

some

cl a s s
i n jury

indi vidual

me mbers
i s sues

Corelogic

Nat'!

461 157 0 ,

at

*3

disti nction);

s ee

did

Bac kground

not

Dat a ,

23

crite r i a

to

that

can not

i n juries
See

dete rmi ne

causes

Hende rson

No .

3 :12CV 9 7 ,

Sept .

2,

20 16)

supra ,

Va .

LLC ,

§ 2: 6

p l a i nt i f f s hows indiv i du a l sta nding ,
Rule

s u f fer

predominate .

Newberg,

also

me mb e r s

but i n s tead tha t the pos s i b i l ity

to

( E.D .

class

v.

20 1 6

WL

( expl ain i n g

( " (W] hen a

cla s s

the court shou l d proceed to

whether .

.

. the

pla int if f

ma y

se rve in a representative capa c i t y on beh a l f o f the cla s s . ") .
GE ICO' s
propo sed

dis cus s ion

class

po ints

de finition .

out

Seve ra l

a

key

courts

f l aw
h a ve

in

held

Branch ' s
that

" no

cla s s ma y be ce rtified that conta ins memb e r s la c king Art i c l e I I I
s tanding , " so " ( t] he c l a s s mu s t there fore be de f i ned in such a
way

that

Deuts che

a nyone
Bank AG ,

Ma z z a v. Am .
{ c i ting

w i th i n
443

it

wou ld

F . 3 d 253 ,

Honda Motor Co . ,

thi s

s tate me nt

have

26 4

s tanding . "

( 2d C i r.

6 6 6 F . 3d 58 1 ,

app rovi ng l y

in

20 0 6) ;

594

see

( 9th C i r .

ana l y z i ng

a l so
20 12)

certifi cation

fa ctors ) ; Avr i tt v. Re l i a star Li fe I n s . Co. ,

6 15 F . 3 d 1023 ,

( 8 th C i r .

2010)

Mgmt .

F . 3d

677

672 ,

De nney);
353 ,

3 68

( s ame ) ;
( 7th

Kohen v .

Cir .

but see Ne a l e v .
{ 3d Cir .

[Ru l e 23 f a cto rs]

20 15)

2 0 0 9}

Pac .

Inv .

( reaching

Volvo Cars

of

s i mi l a r
N.

Am . ,

v.

Denney

Co .

1034

LLC ,

conc lus ion
LLC ,

57 1
to

794 r . 3d

( re j e cting at tempts to "s hoehorn the [ ]

int o a n Arti c l e I I I ana l y s i s ") .

31

Branch ' s cla s s

de f i n i t i on,
de f i n i t i on
because

f a ils

howeve r ,
i n c l udes

of

to

a l l applicants

their

cr imin a l

th i s

meet

Tha t

s t andard .

who re cei ved a \\Fa i l " grade
But ,

h i stories .

as

di s cus se d ,

appli can t s who rece ived that grade and had a me aning ful chance
to correct

it dur i ng

the Adj udi cat ion

not s u f fer any a dve r s e a ction.
Branch ,

e f fectively
ca nnot

individua l s
i nqui r i e s

been

about

Some appl i cant s might have,

denied

that

cure

identi fied

be

the i r

Proce s s ' cure period did

pe r iod,

with

those

i ndividu a l i z e d

without

communi cat ions

but

l i ke

GEICO .

Con sequent l y ,

t h i s Art i c l e I I I sta nding framework reite rates the preva l ence of
part i cu l a rized

factual

is sues

prevent

that

Branch

from

satis fying t h e predom i nance requi rement.
B.

Superiority

Supe r i or i t y

requ i res

that

use

of

a

class

act ion

be

\\s upe rior t o other ava i l able methods for f a i r l y and e f f i c i ent l y
adj udica ting
Superi ority
each
the

controvers y . "

" ' depends

grea t l y

case, '" a nd " ' [ t] he
obj ect ives

ach i eved
274

the

in

the

( quoting

Thoma s ,

the

action

s upra ,

Civ.

P.

ci rcums tances

requires

c a s e. '"

e t al . ,

R.

the

c l a s s-a ction

particu l a r

Wri ght

de t e rminati on,
tha t no

of

rule

on

Fed .

the

surroundi ng

court to f i nd tha t

procedure
Sti l lmock,
§

2 3 ( b) ( 3).

rea l ly
38 5

1 779).

F.

will

be

App'x a t

When ma king

th i s

the Cou r t s hould " not contempla t e t he pos s ibility
at

3 1 2 F.R . D .

a ll
at

might
425

be

super ior

to

(quoting Brown v .

32

a

cla s s

action.'"

Came ron - B rown Co . ,

92

F. R. D.

32 ,

49

(E. D.

incl ude :

con s ider

Va .

1 98 1 ) ) .

the

" (A)

Fa c t o r s

t he

court

members '

class

should
in

i n t e re s t

individu a l l y control l i ng t h e prosecu t i on o r d e f e n se o f s epa ra t e
act ions ;

(B)

the extent a n d n a t u re o f any l i t i g a t i o n concerning

the cont rover s y a l ready begun by or aga i n s t

c l a s s membe rs ;

(C)

the

concent rat ing

the

fo rum;

the

de s i rabi l i t y

or

unde s i rabi l i t y

l i t i g a t i on o f the c l a ims

in

of

t he pa r t i cu l a r

and

l i ke l y di f f i cu l t i es in man a g i n g the class a c t ion . " Fed .
P.

2 3 ( b ) ( 3 ) {A )

( D) .

-

U l t imat e l y ,

"

[ t) he

goa l

is

to

{ D)
R.

Civ .

ensure

that

c l a s s cert i f icat ion o c c u r s only w h e n economy and e f f i c iency a re
rea s onab l y l i ke l y t o res u l t . " Gane sh ,
Ctr s . , I nc . , 1 8 3 F . R . D . 4 8 7 , 4 91

Compu t . Lea rn ing

L. L . C . v .

( E . D . Va .

1998 ) .

B ranch argue s t h a t a c l a s s a c t i o n i s s upe r i o r in t h i s c a s e
f o r s eve r a l r e a s ons .

S he contends that :

i t wou l d wa s t e j udicia l

and individu al re sources t o have hundreds o f t r i a l s applying the
s ame mea s u re of damage s ;
to

unde r s t and

individu a l
FCRA

t ha t

t h ey

cla s s members

because

of

the

way

tha t

Furt hermore ,
FCRA

law s u i t s

might
a re

ma rgina l

l i t igat ion under the
only

individual c l a s s memb e r s are not l i ke l y

class

private

individual
against

have

a

un l i ke l y

G E I CO

members
b a s ed

on

GEICO does not conte s t t h e s e a s s e r t i on s .

33

dama g e s

framewo r k

individua l s

unde r

t o b r i ng

s t a t utory

action

class

c l a im

can

is

suit

these

not

FCRA ;

under

the

ava i labl e ;

and

e f fect ive ly the

e n fo rce

have

the

the

a l ready

unde r l y i ng

FCRA .
f i led
fac ts .

None the l e s s ,

B ranch

has

not

s a t i s f ied

the

superio ri t y

requi remen t here .

I t i s t rue tha t Branch ' s a n d t h e absent c l a s s

membe rs '

c l a ims

damages

a re

relat ively

s ma l l ,

and

that

ma ny

c l a s s members would not b r i ng suit be cause they are not aware o f
the i r FCRA r i gh t s . A c l a s s act ion wou l d not ,
interest

of

con s i derat i on

j ud i c i a l
in

e conomy

a n a l y z ing

in

howeve r ,

this

supe r i o r i t y

is

s e rve the

A

re l evant

case .
" t he

amount

and a tt e n t i on requi red t o s e t t l e the common que s t i ons
with

that

needed

Cameron-B rown

for

Co . ,

above ,

t he

t ime

member

s u f fered

cannot

show

the

r e s o l u t ion

92

F. R . D.

needed

to

adve r s e

that

at

a c t ion

G E I CO' s

from

Proce s s

be

of

a

demon s t ra t i ng
and

i ssues . "

reasons

and

how

de t a i led

e ach

subs tant i a l .
" Fa i l "
that

resci nded

t ime

[ compared )

individua l
the

when

would

a s s ignment

f i r st

Adj udica t i on

For

de t e rmi ne

adve r s e act ion wi thout
the

42.

of

of

grade

class
Branch
was

an

GEICO dev i a t e d
her

cond i t i on a l

o f fe r before t h e c u r e p e r i od ended . G i ven the l a c k o f c l a s s -wide
evide nce about resc i s s ion o f o f fers
the

cure

pe riod ,

to

establish

an

( o r s im i l a r conduct }
FCRA

v i o l a t ion ,

each

during
of

the

other 4 2 5 c l a s s memb e r s wo uld n e e d to f i nd a nd p resent t h e i r own
proof

that

oppo rtun i t y

GE I CO
to

did

cure .

not

provide

mana geri a l

" The

thou s a nds o f mi n i - t ri a l s on th [ a t ]
any

common

e f f i c ienci e s

que s t ions
that

of

t hem

law

c l a s s wide

.

or

with

burden
i s s ue [ ]

fact

and

adj udica t ion

34

a

le g i t ima t e

of

conduct i ng

wou l d overwhelm
e v i s cerate

might

the

otherw i s e

a f ford . "
Civ .

Ganesh ,

P.

L.L . C. ,

23 (b} ( 3 ) { D} .

conduct i ng

her

own

183

F.R. D.

B ranch

at

wou l d

l i t i g a t i on ,

so

4 91;

thus

t ha t

see
be

a l so
bet t e r

absent

class

Fed .

R.

s u i ted
members

cou ld e i ther s e e k c l a s s resolut i on on a common t heory that doe s
not

a pp l y

c l a ims

to

based

Branch ,
on

Whatever the ca s e ,

or,

their

a l t e rna t i ve l y ,
p a rt i cu l a r

file

indi v i ctu a l

i n t e ract ions

with

FCRA

G E I CO .

t h e c l a s s a c t ion i s not the superior me thod

of pursuing the FCRA c l a im in t h i s ca s e ,

and c l a s s cert i f i ca t i on

i s there fore inappropr i a t e .
CONCLUSI ON

For

the

foregoing

reason s ,

PLA I NT I FF' S

RENEWED MOT ION

FOR

CLASS CERT I FICAT ION ( EC F No . 6 6 } wi l l be de n i ed . 10
It is so ORDERE D .
Isl
Robe rt E . P a yne
Senior U n i t ed S t a t e s Di s t r i c t Judg e
Ri chmond , V i r g i n i a
Dat e :
Janua ry _L!j__ , 2 0 1 8

10

I t i s not neces s a r y t o cons ider G E I CO ' s r a t h e r u n i que a rgumen t
about personal j u ri s d i c t i o n , wh i ch i s based on a rather s t ra i ned
reading of B r i s t o l -Myer s
Squ ibb Co .
Supe r i o r Cou rt o f
v.
C a l i forni a ,
1 37 S .
Ct .
1773
( 2017 )
tha t h a s been s oundl y
rej ected by other cour ts . See Da y v . Air Methods Corp . , No . CV
5 : 1 7 - 1 8 3 - DC R , 2 0 1 7 WL 4 7 8 1 8 6 3 , a t * 2 ( E . D . Ky . Oct . 2 3 , 2 0 1 7 ) ;
Fi t z henry-Ru s s e l l v . Dr . Peppe r Snappl e Grp . , I n c . , No . 1 7 -CV0 0 5 6 4 NC , 2 0 1 7 WL 4 2 2 4 7 2 3 , a t * 5 ( N . D . C a l . S ept . 2 2 , 2 0 1 7 ) .
35