California and Pennsylvania FCRA Class Action Rules

Of the many decisions concerning class actions last year, two courts have issued decisions that are particularly important in defending against class actions (especially in the context of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)).

Davis v. UniversalProt. Services LLCno. 20-CV-01758, United States District District Court of Pennsylvania:

In Davis, the applicant (and the alleged class) claimed that the defendant had violated the FCRA by (1) arranging for its review in criminal proceedings; (2) reliance on the content of criminal records reviews; and (3) failure to provide notification in accordance with the FCRA before it has been determined that it is unfit for employment. The applicant claimed that the defendant’s failure to provide the notification in accordance with the FCRA had caused it harm by preventing it from challenging and / or engaging in a meaningful discussion of the content of its criminal investigation report.

The defendant challenged the applicant’s factual allegations and, in the alternative, argued that the applicant did not have standing under Article III to assert his claims according to the recent precedent of the Supreme Court, TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021). The Davis applied court TransUnion and identified the defendant ‘s contention. It found that, although the defendant had not provided the applicant with a notification in accordance with the FCRA before determining that she was unfit for employment, the applicant did not suffer specific damage because in this case she acknowledged the accuracy of her conviction history as criminal offenses returned to her crime. From this reason, Davis the defendant would have ruled that the applicant was not fit for employment, even if the applicant had been dismissed in accordance with the FCRA – ruled that the applicant’s alleged lack of opportunity to have a meaningful discussion on the content of its assurance report could not be directly linked to any specific damage , so that the applicant did not have locus standi under Article III.

The Davis court interpretation TransUnion has implications outside the context of the FCRA, as it reinforces the “fairly traceable” component of Article III, which is behind the requirement for close causation. The deadline for appeal against the decision has expired.

Robert Stone v US Security Associates BC604257, California Supreme Court, County Los Angeles:

In stone, the applicants alleged that the criminal investigation form used by the defendant did not comply with the requirements of the FCRA. The procedural history of this case is complex (it has been awaited for more than six years; it has been removed, transferred and remanded; several nominated petitioners have been brought and either settled their individual claims, forced to arbitrate or their claims have been rejected), but the case has been he eventually moved forward in a California state court without a viable class representative. Defendant in appeal to the decision of the Supreme Court in California tavern. Employees in sys. against ANZ Sec., Inc., 137 S. Ct. 2042 (2017) (CalPERS) argued that the applicants could no longer present a viable class representative because the defendant had replaced the notification form in question in the litigation more than five years ago and the FCRA ‘s five – year period therefore necessarily expired on the basis of claims by all members of the presumed class. The defendant claimed that CalPERS the decision prevents the presumed class member from being added as a class representative if the relevant peace status has expired on the basis of the presumed class member’s claim (question different from whether the presumed class member can remain a member of the presumed class after the expiration of the valid status).

The stone the court finally issued an abbreviated verdict in favor of the defendant – it ruled that it was too late for the class lawyer to add a new class representative, as the restrictions on the presumed class in the case expired a five-year rest period. claims of all members of the presumed class. The court’s decision is currently on appeal. However, if the court’s decision were valid, it would further strengthen the usefulness and compelling public policy of peace.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All rights reserved.National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 98

Leave a Comment