Larson

Larson v. Trans Union, LLC

Good Law
201 F. Supp. 3d 1103·2016 WL 4367253·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106627
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 11, 2016Case No. 12-cv-05726-WHOCalifornia3,222 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Orrick, J.

ORDER REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

On June 26, 2015, I issued an order tentatively granting Larson’s motion for class certification but staying the case pending the outcome in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, — U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 1540 , 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016). Dkt. No. 86 (“Prior Order”). Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, the parties submitted supplemental briefs on how the decision impacts the tentative class certification ruling. Defendant Trans Union, LLC (“Trans Union”) contends that Larson cannot establish standing under Spokeo, and that even if he could, class certification would still be inappropriate because Spok-eo precludes him from establishing ascer-tainability, predominance, and superiority. Dkt. No. 96 at 3-20 (“Trans Union Suppl. Br.”). According to Larson, Spokeo has “no impact on this case.” Dkt. No. 97 at 1 (“Larson Suppl. Br.”). I heard argument from the parties on July 20, 2016, Dkt. No. 99, and now confirm my tentative order and GRANT class certification.

Spokeo involved an appeal from a Ninth Circuit decision holding that the plaintiff had adequately alleged Article III standing, regardless of whether he had…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.