Bingollu v. One Source Technology, LLC

Background

Burak C. Bingollu brought a class action alleging that One Source Technology, LLC, doing business as Asurint, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The complaint alleged that One Source used a common policy of reporting that Social Security numbers issued after June 24, 2011, could not be validated. Bingollu claimed this policy violated the Act’s requirement that consumer reporting agencies use reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of information in consumer reports. One Source disputed the allegations.

The parties reached a settlement after discovery and mediation. The settlement class included people who were the subject of consumer reports prepared by One Source between December 27, 2019, and May 1, 2023, and who met specified conditions involving the reporting or revision of Social Security number information. The parties identified 60,405 class members. After preliminary approval and notice, no class member objected to the settlement, and no class member appeared at the final fairness hearing.

Class Certification

The court granted final certification of the settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. It found that the requirements of Rule 23(a)—numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation—were satisfied. The court also found that common issues predominated over individualized issues and that a class action was the superior method for resolving the dispute under Rule 23(b)(3).

The court concluded that the class was too large for individual joinder to be practical, that the claims involved One Source’s common reporting procedures, and that Bingollu’s claim was typical of the class. It also found that Bingollu and class counsel adequately represented the class. The court considered the class action superior because the class was large while the value of each individual claim was relatively small.

Settlement Approval

The court granted final approval of the settlement under Rule 23(e)(2), finding that it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. One Source agreed to pay $2,400,000 into a common settlement fund. Based on the number of claim forms submitted, class counsel estimated that the fund would produce net payments of approximately $510 for each class member who submitted a claim. No part of the fund would return to One Source, and One Source agreed to change how it reports results in the Social Security number trace section of its background reports.

In approving the settlement, the court considered the strength of Bingollu’s claims, the terms of the settlement, the expense and complexity of continued litigation, One Source’s ability to pay, and the absence of objections. The court also noted that One Source contested whether its procedures were reasonable and whether any violation was willful, and that continued litigation could involve expert discovery, class certification proceedings, summary judgment, trial, and possible appeals.

Fees, Costs, and Service Award

The court granted Bingollu’s motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and a class-representative service award. It found that a fee equal to one-third of the settlement fund—$800,000—was reasonable based on counsel’s work, the risks and complexity of continued litigation, counsel’s experience, the contingent nature of the representation, the benefits obtained for the class, and the early settlement. The court also approved $16,969.63 in costs and a $5,000 service award for Bingollu.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for final approval of the class action settlement, granted final certification of the settlement class, and granted the motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and the class-representative award. It awarded class counsel $816,969.63 in fees and costs, awarded Bingollu $5,000, approved the settlement’s notice methods and forms, and retained jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter concerning interpretation and implementation of the settlement agreement.