Transunion LLC v. Ramirez, Sergio L.

Whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class representative suffered.

An auto dealer refused to do business with Respondent because his name was on a terrorist watch list maintained by Petitioner.  Respondent cancelled a vacation to deal with the issue and was embarrassed by the experience.  Respondent brought a class action suit on behalf of everyone who had received a letter from Petitioner informing them that their name was a “potential match” to the terrorist watch list.  The jury awarded Respondent statutory and punitive damages.  Petitioner appealed and argued that, because Respondent’s injuries and experience were unique, his class action should not have been certified.  The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the verdict. Petitioner argues that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that all absent class members suffered an injury-in-fact is against the Supreme Court’s and other Circuit Court’s Article III precedents.  Petitioner further argues that Respondent, due to his unique injury and experience, was not representative of the class, in violation of the Supreme Court’s Rule 23 precedents.