Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01463/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01463-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

*E-filed 8/10/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHUCK BROWNING,

Plaintiff,

 v.

YAHOO! INC., CONSUMERINFO.COM,

INC., and EXPERIAN NORTH AMERICA,

INC.,

Defendants. /

Case No. C04-01463 HRL

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO

INTERVENE

Re Docket No. 112

The plaintiff in this class action alleges that certain services offered by defendants to

consumers, including Yahoo! Credit Manager, promised but did not deliver "credit repair" and 

violated the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1679. After a substantial period of

litigation and negotiation, the parties have entered into an agreement to settle and dismiss this

action on a class basis, subject to the court's approval. 

Plaintiffs in a separate class action, Millett v. Experian Information Systems (Case No.

SACV 05-879 JVS, pending in the Central District of California) move to intervene due to their

concern that the proposed settlement might have the effect of barring their claims while

affording them no effective relief. The Millett plaintiffs sue some of the same defendants over

the same Yahoo! Credit Manager, but rather than alleging damages related to credit repair, they 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 129 Filed 08/10/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 In class action litigation, there is little practical difference between the rights of an intervenor

and the rights of an unnamed class member who enters an appearance to object to a proposed

settlement. The court has already heard from the Millett plaintiffs, considered their concerns,

and addressed them. Even if not allowed to intervene, they can continue to make their

objections known, and the court will continue to listen.

2

claim they did not get the supposedly promised protection against identify theft and

credit fraud.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) provides for intervention of right "when the

applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the

action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter

impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is

adequately represented by existing parties."

In light of the parties' stated intent to revise the release language of the Browning

settlement, the court is satisfied that the settlement will not "impair or impede" the Millett

plaintiffs' ability to pursue their own claims.1 Assuming that it incorporates the new language

that the parties proposed and the court found acceptable, the settlement agreement will not

release defendants from the Millett claims concerning services that purport to protect consumers

against identity theft and credit fraud. The request for leave to intervene is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2006 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 129 Filed 08/10/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO:

Marc Kirby Callahan mkcallahan@jonesday.com 

Marc Stephen Carlson mscarlson@jonesday.com, tmmead@jonesday.com 

Hanley Chew hanley.chew@usdoj.gov, hanleychew@hotmail.com 

Bryson Reid Cloon bryson@cloonlaw.com, april@cloonlaw.com;

jeaontheroad@hotmail.com 

Jerome R. Doak jrdoak@jonesday.com, cecox@jonesday.com 

John W. Edwards jwedwards@jonesday.com, 

Gordon John Finwall Gordon@Finwalllaw.com, finwall@sbcglobal.net 

Richard Joseph Grabowski rgrabowski@jonesday.com, 

Peter A. Grammas pgrammas@lowegrammas.com, 

Clay Lowe clowe@lowegrammas.com 

David Clark Zucker zuckerlaw@sbcglobal.net, dkzucker@sbcglobal.net 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

A courtesy copy will be mailed to:

Michael W. Blanton 

Swanson Midgley LLC

Suite 400

2420 Pershing Rd

Kansas City, MO 64108

Dated: 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 129 Filed 08/10/06 Page 3 of 3