A federal court in Philadelphia denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification, finding that, because a credit repair organization (CRO) prepared his dispute for him, he was not a proper representative plaintiff. Klotz v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 05-4580 (E.D. Pa. July 3, 2007). Plaintiff, by way of a letter prepared by a CRO, disputed certain items on his credit report. Trans Union allegedly refused to investigate whether those items were accurate; stating in a letter that it had no obligation to investigate disputes prepared by third parties and that, in its experience, CROs regularly disputed accurate information. Plaintiff brought a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim on behalf of himself and others who received a similar letter refusing to investigate.

Decision:
The court denied plaintiff’s motion, however, finding that because plaintiff had submitted the dispute through a CRO he would be subject to unique issues as to whether the dispute was submitted “directly” – as required by FCRA – and whether the dispute was presumptively frivolous. Accordingly, plaintiff's claims were not typical of the class claims, he was not an adequate representative of the class, and individual issues specific to plaintiff would predominate over class issues. The court also found that a class action was not a superior method for adjudicating plaintiff’s claims, in part for the reasons stated, but also because FCRA’s punitive damages and attorneys’ fees provisions for prevailing parties “dispel the notion that a class action is the only way to adjudicate the lawfulness of the defendant’s practices.”