United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION
ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
(Doc. 91.) The motion has been fully briefed, and the Court
has heard oral argument. (Doc. 92; Doc. 99; Doc. 125; Doc.
149.) After careful consideration and for the reasons below,
the motion is DENIED.
allege that Defendant, an owner of residential rental
properties, failed to give Plaintiffs certain disclosures
after it took adverse action against them based on consumer
reports in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1681m(a) (“FCRA”). (Doc. 1-1
¶¶ 54-61; Doc. 92 at 6.) Specifically, Plaintiffs
claim that Defendant took adverse actions based on their
consumer reports but never gave them the required
“post-adverse-action” disclosures. Plaintiffs
claim they were harmed without these notices because they
lost the opportunity to respond. Defendant admits it did not
have a practice of sending out adverse-action notices prior
to receiving notice of this lawsuit. (Doc. 102 at 19.)
Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class:
All persons residing in Missouri who, within the five years
preceding the filing of this petition who [sic],
(a) submitted a lease application to Defendant, and
(b) Defendant obtained a consumer credit report[, ] and
(c) Defendant took adverse action as to their lease
application based upon typthe contents of their consumer
credit report[, ] and
(d) who did not receive any FCRA adverse action notice from
Excluded from the above class definition are Defendants, any
entity in which any Defendants has [sic] a controlling
interest, any of the officers, directors, or employees of
Defendants, the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and
assigns of Defendants, or their immediate family and
(Doc. 91 at 1.)
is a threshold jurisdictional issue that the Court must
address first even though the parties did not address it.
See Schumacher v. S.C. Data Ctr., Inc., 912 F.3d
1104, 1105 (8th Cir. 2019). Under Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, “a plaintiff must show that he or she
suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is
concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical.” 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1548
(2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In the FCRA
context, a plaintiff must allege more than a “bare
procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm.”
Id. at 1549.
the three named plaintiffs have demonstrated an Article III
injury by submitting affidavits stating that they would have
corrected errors in their consumer reports and reapplied for
a lease if they had received proper FCRA
notices. (Doc. 107-1 ¶¶ 9-11; Doc. 107-2
¶¶ 9-11; Doc. 107-3 ...