Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

We successfully short-circuited a putative class action in a claim brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

We successfully short-circuited a putative class action in a claim brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Plaintiff alleged willful violations of FCRA due to inclusion of plaintiff's sealed criminal history records in a background screening report prepared by our client for the plaintiff's prospective employer. Plaintiff also sought to represent a class of similarly affected individuals. The putative class, if certified, could have exposed our client to potential liability approaching $10 million. Prior to completion of class certification discovery, we made a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment to plaintiff in the amount of $25,000. The offer was based on the statutory maximum of $1,000 under the FCRA, plus punitive damages. The plaintiff moved to strike the Offer of Judgment in light of case law in the Third, Fifth, Seventh and Eight Circuits holding that an offer of judgment in this context would defeat the purpose of class actions by allowing defendants to "pick-off" each class representative. In response, we argued that a plaintiff could then effectively eliminate all Rule 68 Offers of Judgment by simply pasting the label of "Class Action" to a complaint. We also pointed out that the Sixth Circuit (which encompasses the Western District of Tennessee) had not directly ruled on this issue and the law in this regard was unsettled. In its 13-page opinion denying plaintiff's motion to strike, the court agreed with our interpretation of the law and quoted our brief in holding that the law in the Sixth Circuit was "unsettled indeed." Not only did the court deny the motion to strike, it also entered judgment for plaintiff in the amount of the offered $25,000 and dismissed plaintiff's claims as moot. The precedential value of this opinion so concerned the class action bar that it brought in national class action counsel in an attempt to overturn the court's decision via reconsideratiWon or appeal. We thereafter negotiated a settlement for a nominal amount, which included the court agreeing to vacate its opinion, solely for the purpose of effectuating settlement.

Related Practice Areas

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."