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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?