On January 10, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia denied Plaintiff Tiffanie Branch's renewed
motion for class certification in Branch v. Government
Employees Insurance Company, No. 3:16-cv-1010, 2018 WL 358504
(E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2018). In particular, the Court found that the
facts underlying her allegations were too individualized and
specific to merit class certification. Because of this deficiency,
Branch failed to meet, among other criteria, the predominance
criterion required by Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. This post examines the interaction between predominance
and Article III standing.
Background
In August 2016, Branch accepted a job offer with Defendant
GEICO, contingent upon the results of a background check. The
background report included a felony conviction that Branch had not
disclosed on her application. GEICO preliminarily graded
Branch's report as "Fail" because of the conviction
and then
