On March 4, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part a consumer plaintiff’s motion for class certification after denying the defendant credit reporting agency’s motion for summary judgment in an FCRA and California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA) suit. The plaintiff, on behalf of the class, alleged that the defendant “failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the consumer information included in its OFAC Check documents” and “failed to disclose upon request all information in consumer files,” in violation of CCRAA and the FCRA. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant “failed to reinvestigate the disputed OFAC-related information that it had prepared and sold” to its clients. In granting in part the plaintiff’s motion for class certification, the district court quoted the U.S. Supreme Court case TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which ruled that only a plaintiff concretely harmed by a defendant’s violation of the FCRA has Article III standing to seek damages against a private defendant in federal court (covered by InfoBytes here). In referencing TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the district court noted that “[the plaintiff] and the putative class members incurred the ‘same or similar injury’ in that they suffered ‘concrete reputational harm’ from the ‘same conduct’ of [the defendant].” The district court further noted that as a basis for class typicality, “[e]ven if [the plaintiff’s] injuries were slightly more severe than some class members’ injuries, [the plaintiff’s] injuries still arose ‘from the same event or practice or course of conduct that [gave] rise to the claims of other class members and [his claims were] based on the same legal theory.’” Consequently, the district court certified the class with respect to plaintiff’s FCRA allegations for statutory damages and CCRAA claims for injunctive relief. However, the district court denied class certification with respect to plaintiff’s CCRAA allegations for statutory damages, noting that “[t]he CCRAA, unlike the FCRA, requires a showing of actual harm where, as here, the plaintiff is seeking statutory punitive damages” because “individual issues will predominate.”