Author: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Emilee N. Crowther

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Sgouros v. Transunion Corp., No. 1:14-CV-01850, 2023 WL 6690474 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2023), Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) case because Plaintiff failed to satisfy the Rule 23 requirements of commonality, adequacy of representation, and predominance. For entities facing FCRA class actions, this decision provides a concise explanation of what factors courts may consider with respect to commonality, adequacy of representation, and predominance in ruling on a motion for class certification.

Case Background

In this litigation, Defendants are collectively a well-known American consumer credit reporting agency.  In 2013, Defendants offered a 3-in-1 Credit Report, Credit Score & Debt Analysis for consumers to purchase. The 3-in-1 report included a VantageScore, which, similar to a FICO score, looks at the information in a consumer’s credit report and generates a score to help lenders determine a consumer’s creditworthiness.

On June 10, 2013, Plaintiff purchased a 3-in-1 Credit Report and VantageScore from Defendants.  Id. at 1.  On the same day he purchased the report, Plaintiff alleged he was denied his desired auto loan because “the credit score the lender was provided was more than 100 points lower than the number contained in the VantageScore [Plaintiff] purchased.”  Id.

Plaintiff later testified he knew the VantageScore was “useless” in September 2012, and failed to provide an explanation as to why he purchased a VantageScore nine months after such realization.  Id.  Plaintiff also testified that, contrary to the allegations in his complaint, he did not buy the score in advance of his search for an auto loan, and “he did not read the TransUnion website content that accompanied the purchase of his VantageScore.”  Id.

In 2014, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging violations the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”).  Id.  Plaintiff sought to represent a nationwide class and a Missouri-based class consisting of all persons “who purchased a VantageScore 1.0 Score through TransUnion Interactive’s website, or its predecessor website, during the period October 1, 2009, to September 1, 2015.”  Id.

The Court’s Decision

The Court held that Plaintiff failed to establish commonality, adequacy of representation, and predominance for both the FCRA and MMPA claims under Rule 23(a) and (b), and denied class certification. Id. at 6.

Rule 23(a)(2) – Commonality

Plaintiffs must demonstrate that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class” to meet the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).  Id. at 3.  Importantly, Plaintiff is required to “demonstrate that the class members ‘have suffered the same injury,’” and that the claims are “capable of classwide resolution.”  Id. (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011)).   Plaintiff asserted five questions to establish commonality.  Id.  Overall, the Court found Plaintiff’s commonality questions were insufficient because they “merely restate[d] the core elements of statutory violations” and did not demonstrate “to what extent the class members suffered a common injury.”  Id.

Specifically as to the alleged FCRA violations, the “core liability dispute” was whether or not Defendants failed to supply the class “with a credit score . . . that assist[ed] the consumer in understanding the credit scoring assessment of the credit behavior of the consumer and predictions about the future credit behavior of the consumer.”  Id. at 2.  Plaintiff asserted that the VantageScore could not assist consumers in understanding their credit score assessment “because the VantageScore was not similar enough to a FICO score and or widely used by lenders.”  Id. at 4.  The Court disagreed. It held that because Plaintiff failed to present any argument or evidence “independent of a comparison to a FICO score,” Plaintiff’s common questions were not “capable of common answers,” and Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement was not met.  Id.

Similarly, “[b]ecause [Plaintiff’s] MMPA common question . . . [was] premised on the same logic as the FCRA claim,” the Court found that “commonality was not met.”  Id.

Rule 23(a)(4) – Adequacy of Representation

A named plaintiff must also establish they can adequately serve as a class representative under Rule 23(a)(4).  Id.  A named plaintiff is inadequate if they “have serious credibility problems” or if they have “antagonistic of conflicting” interests to absent class members.  Id.  The Court held that Plaintiff was inadequate to represent the class on both the FCRA and MMPA claims due to Plaintiff’s questionable credibility and the inconsistencies in his deposition testimony.  Id. at 4-5.

Rule 23(b)(3) – Predominance

The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the putative class claims “predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,” and are “sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.”  Id. at 5.  The Court found that the FCRA’s statutory requirement of assisting a consumer in understanding their credit score is “necessarily individualized given the inherently personal nature how credit scores are calculated and consumers’ personal behaviors,” and predominance was not met.  Id.

Implications For Credit Reporting Companies

This ruling provides a straightforward analysis of what elements courts may find persuasive in ruling on a motion for class certification in an FCRA class action. It ought to be a required read for corporate counsel in any FCRA case.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Gur-Ravantab, et al. v. Georgetown University, No. 1:22-CV-01038, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179493 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2023), Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on the grounds that the named Plaintiff was neither an adequate representative of the proposed class nor even a member of it.  

For companies facing motions for certification motions in class actions, this decision is instructive in terms of considerations over the circumstances where a named plaintiff may fall short of satisfying the adequacy requirement under 23(a)(4). 

Case Background

The named Plaintiff, Emir Gur-Ravanatab (“Plaintiff”), was a Class of 2020 graduate of Georgetown University.  Id. at 1.  In March 2020 of his final semester, the COVID-19 pandemic swept the nation.  Id. at 2.   Defendant, Georgetown University (“Defendant”), like many other schools, announced its transition to remote instruction for the rest of the Spring 2020 semester.  Id.

Plaintiff alleged that he entered a contract with the Defendant, and under that contract, Plaintiff paid tuition in exchange for a guarantee of “in-person classroom learning and other services.” Id. at 1-2.  Plaintiff alleged that there was a material difference in value between in-person and remote instruction. Therefore, despite Defendant’s transition to remote instruction, Plaintiff was never paid the difference.  Id. at 2.

Plaintiff alleged breach of an express and implied contract claims, and an unjust enrichment claim.  Id.  Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, and restitution for his claims.  Id.   He also moved to certify a class on behalf of other students who similarly formed contracts with Defendant and were enrolled as undergraduate students “during the Spring 2020 semester who paid tuition and Mandatory Fees.”  Id.  Plaintiff alleged the class covered roughly 7,300 other current and former university students.  Id.

The Court’s Decision

The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. It held that the named Plaintiff was not an adequate representative of the class he proposed to certify nor even a member of the class.  Id. at 1.

The Court reasoned the requirements of all class action suits are well-settled under Rule 23.  Id. at 3.  These requirements are known as “numerosity,” “commonality,” “typicality,” and “adequacy.”  Id. at 4.    Additionally, the Court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent that “has ‘repeatedly held’ that ‘a class representative must be a part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.’”  Id.  After a plaintiff and his proposed class satisfy those requirements, then the plaintiff and the proposed class must fall within one of the three “buckets” of class actions enumerated under Rule 23(b).  Id. at 4-5.  The Court found Plaintiff “stumbled before reaching Rule 23(b)” as he was “both an inadequate representative of the proposed class, and a non-member” of it.  Id. at 5.

The Court focused its ruling on the adequacy prong under Rule 23(a).  The Court opined that “[Plaintiff] does not share the same interests as the other class members, and indeed, has a potential conflict of interest with them,” and therefore is “not an adequate class representative.”  Id. at 7.  Plaintiff suffered two problems, including: (i) Plaintiff’s mother is an employee of the university; and (ii) Plaintiff did not personally pay tuition or mandatory fees.  Id. at 7-8.  Therefore, the Court determined “he lack[ed] the kind of concrete stake in the outcome of th[e] litigation necessary to be the vigorous advocate the class is entitled to.”

As to potential class conflicts, Plaintiff’s mother was a Turkish language instructor with the university, and hence he had a close familial relationship to a person who may be harmed by a judgment against the university.  Id. at 8.  Further, Plaintiff testified in his deposition that his parents, including his mother “exert a ‘pretty major’ influence over his decisions.”  Id.  The Court reasoned that “Rule 23 requires that class representatives be able to engage in arm’s-length dealings with the opposing side” and Plaintiff did not meet that standard.  Id.  However, the Court acknowledged that this conflict on its own “would not be enough, standing on its own, to defeat adequacy,” but other problems persisted. Id.

Plaintiff’s second problem was he did not share the same interest in this case as the other class members.  Id.  Plaintiff “sued for a refund of the difference in value between the education he paid for and the one he got,” but Plaintiff “did not pay for an education at all.”  Id.  The Court considered Plaintiff’s student account as the operative measure for educational payments.  Id. at 8-11.

On balance, the Court construed the student account two ways. Either, Plaintiff did “not pay [Defendant] a dime,” Id. at 9, or Plaintiff “got more money out of [Defendant] that semester than he put in.”  Id. at 11.  Based on the Court’s reasoning, both accountings lead to the same problem, i.e., that Plaintiff “will likely have no compensatory damages to claim,” and “without compensatory damages, [Plaintiff] cannot claim punitive damages either.” Id.  Therefore, the Court held that Plaintiff could not obtain meaningful relief, and thus, “he lack[ed] ‘the incentive to represent the claims of the class vigorously.’”  Id.   As a result of Plaintiff owing no money towards tuition and Mandatory Fees, the Court found he “quite simply is not a member of the proposed class.”  Id. 

The Court further discussed the second named Plaintiff, Emily Lama, and her exclusion from the class as well because she was “enrolled as a graduate student during the Spring 2020 Semester,” meaning she also did not fit the undergraduate class description.  Id. at 11-12.

Accordingly, as there was no named Plaintiff to represent the class, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.  Id. at 12.  

Implications For Companies

Companies confronted with motions for class certification should take note that the court in Gur-Ravantab relied on Plaintiffs’ inability to adequately represent the class based on a fact intensive analysis that disqualified the named Plaintiff as a suitable class representative.  Further, from a practical standpoint, companies should carefully evaluate class representatives for unique characteristics that are distinguishable from the proposed class.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Kathryn Brown

Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 27, 2023, District Court Judge Charles E. Fleming in Woods et al. v. First Transit, Inc., et al., 21-cv-739 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2023) denied plaintiffs’ motion for court-authorized notice of bus drivers’ claims of alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The district court applied the Sixth Circuit’s newly-minted standard to conclude the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a “strong likelihood” exists that they are similarly situated in relevant respects to other employees of the defendant transportation company.  The court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ “self-serving declarations” and consideration of the defendants’ competing evidence illustrates how the Sixth Circuit’s new standard is a game changer for FLSA litigants in Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky.

Case Background

On April 6, 2021, three named plaintiffs filed a class and collective action lawsuit asserting claims of unpaid overtime in violation of the FLSA and Ohio, California and New York state laws.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to pay overtime wages to fixed-route bus drivers for work performed before and after their shifts.  The plaintiffs also alleged the defendant deducted 30 minutes’ worth of time from their pay for unpaid meal breaks even when they did not receive uninterrupted break time.  After the district granted the defendant’s partial motion to dismiss the New York and California state law claims, only the Ohio state law claims survived.  Additionally, only two named plaintiffs remained after one of the named plaintiff s was shown never to have worked as a fixed-route bus driver.

Two individuals filed consents to join the lawsuit as opt-in plaintiffs in October 2021 and a third joined the lawsuit in February 2022.

After approximately six months of fact discovery solely on the issue of conditional certification, the named plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of their claims under the FLSA on June 29, 2022.  If granted, the plaintiffs would have authority to issue notice to a collective including any person who drove a fixed bus route for the defendant in any week during the prior three years.

In support of their motion, the plaintiffs submitted sworn declarations of the two named plaintiffs and three putative opt-in plaintiffs, job descriptions, an employee handbook and a user guide for time entry.  In opposition to the motion, the defendant submitted sworn declarations of managers at the locations at which the named or opt-in plaintiffs had worked, declarations of corporate human resources and payroll staff and collective bargaining agreements governing fixed-route bus drivers at various locations.

After the parties fully briefed the motion, the district court deferred ruling on the motion until the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its anticipated decision on the standard for conditional certification in FLSA cases.

On May 19, 2023, the Sixth Circuit in Clark v. A&L Homecare and Training Center, LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023), announced a new standard for determining whether FLSA plaintiffs may issue court-sanctioned notice to other employees.  Rejecting the prior standard in which a plaintiff need only make a “modest factual showing” to win court-authorized notice, the Sixth Circuit held that plaintiffs must put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate a “strong likelihood” exists that they are similarly situated to other employees.  Factors relevant to the analysis include whether the potential other plaintiffs performed the same tasks and were subject to the same timekeeping and pay policies as the named plaintiffs.  After Clark, the parties submitted supplemental briefs arguing how the new standard applied to the plaintiffs’ pending motion.

The Court’s Decision

Upon weighing the parties’ competing evidence, the district court answered “no” to the question whether a strong likelihood exists that the named plaintiffs experienced the same policies of unpaid overtime wages as other employees of the defendant.

The district court concluded that the plaintiffs did not introduce any evidence of a “company-wide policy” binding on all fixed-route bus drivers that potentially violates the FLSA.  The court stated that the only evidence of the alleged unlawful overtime pay practices came in the form of “self-serving declarations” of doubtful credibility.  For example, an opt-in plaintiff declared that she worked as a fixed-route bus driver until December 2020.  However, the manager who oversaw the opt-in plaintiff’s location declared that no driver at that location drove a fixed bus route.  The court reasoned no “strong likelihood” exists that the opt-in plaintiff is similarly situated to the named plaintiffs given that the opt-in plaintiff could not be in the proposed collective of fixed-route bus drivers.

The court also considered the evidence of written policies regarding meal breaks, or the lack thereof, for fixed-route bus drivers.  Contrary to the plaintiffs’ allegation of company-wide automatic pay deductions for meal break time, the manager of the location at which one of the named plaintiffs had worked declared that drivers at that location did not even receive meal breaks.

The collective bargaining agreements in evidence showed that different locations of work had different policies governing time entry and breaks for fixed-route bus drivers.  For example, a collective bargaining agreement for one location stated that the defendant paid drivers for 15 minutes of time prior to their route to perform pre-shift work.  A collective bargaining agreement for another location said the defendant paid drivers 20 minutes for pre-shift work.

In sum, the court reasoned that the evidence revealed dissimilarity in policies and practices concerning compensation for the company’s fixed-route bus drivers.  Because the evidence showed employees were subject to different policies concerning key issues such as how they report time, how schedules are set, what period of time is compensable, whether they receive a meal break and how meal breaks are paid, the court concluded the plaintiffs did not satisfy the “strong likelihood” standard announced in Clark to obtain court-authorized notice of their FLSA claims.

Implications For Employers

The district court’s ruling in Woods leaves no doubt that FLSA plaintiffs in the Sixth Circuit face a heightened evidentiary burden to obtain court-authorized notice in the wake of the Sixth Circuit’s new standard in Clark.  The district court clarified that the “strong likelihood” standard in Clark is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading standard.  The court’s analysis in Woods shows defendants have a genuine opportunity to present evidence to attack the plaintiffs’ efforts to show a common policy of FLSA-violating conduct and thereby block notice to other employees who may expand the scope of the lawsuit exponentially.  Employers with operations in the Sixth Circuit ought to use Clark as an opportunity to look anew at their wage and hour policies and practices to guard against the risk of costly and time-consuming FLSA litigation.