Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McIntyre v. Rentgrow, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

August 1, 2019

PATRICIA MCINTYRE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
RENTGROW, INC., d/b/a/ YARDI RESIDENT SCREENING, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO STRIKE CLASS CLAIMS

          ALLISON D. BURROUGHS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         On October 12, 2018, Patricia McIntyre (“Plaintiff”) initiated this consumer class action brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681x, in which she alleged that RentGrow, Inc. d/b/a Yardi Resident Screening (“Defendant”) published misleading and inaccurate tenant screening reports to landlords and property managers in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). [ECF No. 1 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”) ¶¶ 1-2]. 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) requires consumer reporting agencies to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information” they report. Plaintiff brings this FCRA claim on behalf of herself and a putative nationwide class of tenants who were similarly harmed by Defendant's inaccurate consumer reports. [Id. ¶¶ 78-85]. Currently pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss or to strike the class allegations in the Complaint, which has been fully briefed. See [ECF Nos. 12-13, 16-17, 20, 24]. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss or to strike the class claims [ECF No. 12] is DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The following facts are drawn from the Complaint, the well-pleaded allegations of which are taken as true for purposes of evaluating Defendant's motion to dismiss. See Ruivo v. Wells Fargo Bank, 766 F.3d 87, 90 (1st Cir. 2014).

         Defendant is in the business of preparing tenant screening reports for sale to landlords and property managers. See [Compl. ¶¶ 10, 22]. These reports include information “bear[ing] on the credit history, credit worthiness, reputation, personal characteristics, and mode of living” of prospective tenants. [Id. ¶ 22]. To populate these reports, Defendant has for years purchased public records information relating to residential eviction litigation (“eviction information”) from private vendors. [Id. ¶ 10]. The information Defendant purchases from private vendors only contains a summary, which Defendant knows is often incomplete or not current. [Id. ¶¶ 11-12]. Defendant does not directly access the underlying court records. [Id. ¶ 10]. As a result, “Defendant regularly reports inaccurate and out-of-date eviction information pertaining to eviction cases and judgments that have been dismissed, withdrawn, satisfied, or have resulted in a judgment for the tenant.” [Id. ¶ 23]. Defendant is aware that large credit reporting agencies now refrain from using public records information in some of their consumer reporting products, as a result of state attorneys general investigations and civil litigation.[1] [Id. ¶¶ 19-20]; see [id. ¶¶ 13-18].

         On July 27, 2017, Plaintiff applied to rent an apartment at Alden Park, an apartment complex in Philadelphia, PA. [Id. ¶ 26]. A representative of Alden Park obtained a report from Defendant about Plaintiff for a fee (“Tenant Report”). [Id.]. Defendant prepared the Tenant Report using information purchased from TransUnion. [Id. ¶ 27]. The Tenant Report contained eleven inaccurate and out-of-date items of eviction information. [Id. ¶¶ 28-75]. At all relevant times, current information relating to these items was publicly available for free through the Philadelphia Municipal Court Electronic Filing System. See [id. ¶¶ 25, 28-75]. As a result of the Tenant Report furnished by Defendant, Plaintiff was unable to secure rental housing. [Id. ¶ 76].

         Plaintiff seeks to certify the following nationwide class:

Failure to Update Class - Nationwide
For the period beginning five (5) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and continuing through the date of judgment, all natural persons with an address in the United States and its Territories who were subjects of tenant screening reports created by Defendant that contained eviction information, but which failed to state that the action had been withdrawn, dismissed, non-suited, or resulted in a judgment for the tenant defendant according to court records Dated: least 30 days prior to the date of the report.

[Id. ¶ 78].

         She also seeks to certify the following two subclasses:

Failure to Update Subclass I : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
For the period beginning five (5) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and continuing through the date of judgment, all natural persons with an address in the United States and its Territories who were subjects of tenant screening reports created by Defendant that contained information pertaining to a landlord tenant action filed within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but which failed to state that the action had been withdrawn, dismissed, non-suited, or resulted in ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.