Summary
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s partial summary judgment for Milliman, Inc. in a Fair Credit Reporting Act class action. The court held that, after class certification, both named and unnamed members of a certified damages class must present evidence supporting Article III standing at summary judgment. It further held that circumstantial evidence may suffice and that plaintiffs need only show a genuine dispute of material fact, requiring remand for reconsideration under the proper standard.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether, after certification of a class seeking money damages, unnamed class members must present evidence of Article III standing at the summary-judgment stage.
- Whether the usual summary-judgment standards apply to the class-wide standing inquiry, including whether circumstantial evidence may suffice and whether the plaintiff must establish that a jury necessarily would find standing.
Holdings
- Following class certification, both named and unnamed members of a certified class seeking money damages must present evidence establishing a genuine dispute of material fact concerning standing at summary judgment.
- The usual summary-judgment standards apply. A plaintiff may rely on direct or circumstantial evidence and need only produce enough evidence for a rational trier of fact reasonably to infer class-wide standing; the plaintiff need not show that a jury necessarily would find standing.
Key quotations
“We conclude that they must do so. However, we further hold that the usual summary judgment standards apply.” (at 4)
“We conclude that TransUnion also compels unnamed class members to demonstrate evidence of standing here—after class certification but prior to trial at summary judgment.” (at 13)
“At summary judgment, Healy identified 311,226 of Milliman’s consumer reports issued to insurance companies that included (1) a social security number not belonging to the applicant and (2) a medium or high risk indicator within that report.” (at 17)
“Healy did not need to show that a jury “necessarily” would find that mismatched social security numbers demonstrate misattributed health records. Rather, Healy merely needed to produce enough evidence at summary judgment that a rational trier of fact “could” reasonably infer that this was the case.” (at 18)
Factual background
Milliman operates Intelliscript, a service that compiles medical and prescription-history reports for insurers and provides underwriting risk recommendations. Milliman's report concerning James Healy allegedly included another person's medical records and Social Security number, attributed serious medical conditions to Healy, and caused Americo to deny his life-insurance application. The certified inaccuracy class was identified in part through 311,226 reports containing a Social Security-number mismatch and at least one yellow or red risk indicator.
Procedural history
Healy filed a putative class action alleging that Milliman violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports. The district court certified an inaccuracy class, then granted Milliman partial summary judgment on the ground that Healy had not presented sufficient direct evidence of class-wide concrete injury and dismissed the class. After denying reconsideration, the district court certified the order for interlocutory appeal, and the Ninth Circuit granted permission to appeal.
Remand instructions
The district court must reconsider whether Healy presented enough circumstantial evidence for a rational trier of fact reasonably to infer class-wide standing under the usual summary-judgment standard. The Ninth Circuit expressed no view on whether the evidence actually creates a genuine dispute of material fact.