{"id":903,"date":"2023-10-18T12:39:44","date_gmt":"2023-10-18T16:39:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=903"},"modified":"2023-10-18T12:39:44","modified_gmt":"2023-10-18T16:39:44","slug":"illinois-federal-court-denies-class-certification-in-a-nationwide-fcra-lawsuit-due-to-issues-with-commonality-adequacy-of-representation-and-predominance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2023\/10\/18\/illinois-federal-court-denies-class-certification-in-a-nationwide-fcra-lawsuit-due-to-issues-with-commonality-adequacy-of-representation-and-predominance\/","title":{"rendered":"Illinois Federal Court Denies Class Certification In A Nationwide FCRA Lawsuit Due To Issues With Commonality, Adequacy Of Representation, And Predominance"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Emilee N. Crowther<\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/i>:<\/b> 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<\/a> Plaintiff\u2019s motion for class certification in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (\u201cFCRA\u201d) 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.<\/i><\/p>\n

Case Background<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

In this litigation, Defendants are collectively a well-known American consumer credit reporting agency.\u00a0 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\u2019s credit report and generates a score to help lenders determine a consumer\u2019s creditworthiness.<\/p>\n

On June 10, 2013, Plaintiff purchased a 3-in-1 Credit Report and VantageScore from Defendants.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 1.\u00a0 On the same day he purchased the report, Plaintiff alleged he was denied his desired auto loan because \u201cthe credit score the lender was provided was more than 100 points lower than the number contained in the VantageScore [Plaintiff] purchased.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Plaintiff later testified he knew the VantageScore was \u201cuseless\u201d in September 2012, and failed to provide an explanation as to why he purchased a VantageScore nine months after such realization.\u00a0 Id.<\/i>\u00a0 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 \u201che did not read the TransUnion website content that accompanied the purchase of his VantageScore.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

In 2014, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging violations the Fair Credit Reporting Act (\u201cFCRA\u201d) and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (\u201cMMPA\u201d).\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 Plaintiff sought to represent a nationwide class and a Missouri-based class consisting of all persons \u201cwho purchased a VantageScore 1.0 Score through TransUnion Interactive\u2019s website, or its predecessor website, during the period October 1, 2009, to September 1, 2015.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s Decision<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

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<\/i>. at 6.<\/p>\n

Rule 23(a)(2) \u2013 Commonality<\/u><\/p>\n

Plaintiffs must demonstrate that \u201cthere are questions of law or fact common to the class\u201d to meet the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 3.\u00a0 Importantly, Plaintiff is required to \u201cdemonstrate that the class members \u2018have suffered the same injury,\u2019\u201d and that the claims are \u201ccapable of classwide resolution.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>. (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes<\/i>, 564 U.S. 338 (2011)).\u00a0\u00a0 Plaintiff asserted five questions to establish commonality.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 Overall, the Court found Plaintiff\u2019s commonality questions were insufficient because they \u201cmerely restate[d] the core elements of statutory violations\u201d and did not demonstrate \u201cto what extent the class members suffered a common injury.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Specifically as to the alleged FCRA violations, the \u201ccore liability dispute\u201d was whether or not Defendants failed to supply the class \u201cwith 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.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 2.\u00a0 Plaintiff asserted that the VantageScore could not assist consumers in understanding their credit score assessment \u201cbecause the VantageScore was not similar enough to a FICO score and or widely used by lenders.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 4.\u00a0 The Court disagreed. It held that because Plaintiff failed to present any argument or evidence \u201cindependent of a comparison to a FICO score,\u201d Plaintiff\u2019s common questions were not \u201ccapable of common answers,\u201d and Rule 23(a)\u2019s commonality requirement was not met.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Similarly, \u201c[b]ecause [Plaintiff\u2019s] MMPA common question . . . [was] premised on the same logic as the FCRA claim,\u201d the Court found that \u201ccommonality was not met.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Rule 23(a)(4) \u2013 Adequacy of Representation<\/u><\/p>\n

A named plaintiff must also establish they can adequately serve as a class representative under Rule 23(a)(4).\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 A named plaintiff is inadequate if they \u201chave serious credibility problems\u201d or if they have \u201cantagonistic of conflicting\u201d interests to absent class members.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. \u00a0<\/i>The Court held that Plaintiff was inadequate to represent the class on both the FCRA and MMPA claims due to Plaintiff\u2019s questionable credibility and the inconsistencies in his deposition testimony.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 4-5.<\/p>\n

Rule 23(b)(3) – Predominance<\/u><\/p>\n

The plaintiff must also demonstrate that the putative class claims \u201cpredominate over any questions affecting only individual members,\u201d and are \u201csufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 5.\u00a0 The Court found that the FCRA\u2019s statutory requirement of assisting a consumer in understanding their credit score is \u201cnecessarily individualized given the inherently personal nature how credit scores are calculated and consumers\u2019 personal behaviors,\u201d and predominance was not met.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Implications For Credit Reporting Companies<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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\u2019s motion for class certification in a Fair Credit … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Illinois Federal Court Denies Class Certification In A Nationwide FCRA Lawsuit Due To Issues With Commonality, Adequacy Of Representation, And Predominance”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9],"class_list":["post-903","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-certification-motions"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Riley","first_name":"Jennifer A.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/jenniferriley.html","description":"Read Jennifer's bio.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/903","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=903"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/903\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=903"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=903"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=903"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=903"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}