Claimants sought to represent a class of similarly situated claimants, (Doc. No. 1-2, pp. 2023); however, the Middle District of North Carolina denied their motion for class certification. Hatch v. DeMayo, 2020 WL 4719632 (M.D. N.C. August 13, 2020).
However, on August 13, 2020, the Middle District of North Carolina denied their motion for class certification. See Hatch v. DeMayo, 2020 WL 4719632 (M.D.N.C. August 13, 2020). Then, On January 22, 2021, the Middle District of North Carolina issued a memorandum opinion and order finding the Hatch Defendants did not violate the DPPA when they obtained, disclosed, or used the personal information at issue.
See, e.g.,FCC v. AT & T Inc. , 562 U.S. 397, 131 S.Ct. 1177, 179 L.Ed.2d 132 (2011) ; Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (2020) ("To have reference"); Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) ("To relate directly to; to concern or have to do with"). In support of their position that commonality (as well as typicality) cannot be found because of the various ways in which Crash Reports are prepared, Defendants cite to the Court two recent decisions in the Middle District of North Carolina, Hatch v. Demayo , No. 1:16CV925, 2020 WL 4719632 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 13, 2020) and Garey v. James S. Farrin, P.C. , No. 1:16CV542, 2020 WL 4227551 (M.D.N.C. July 23, 2020). In those DPPA actions, the putative class representatives asserted claims against law firms who obtained similar North Carolina accident reports and solicited the plaintiffs and their putative class.