Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02530/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02530-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Clerk’s Judgment pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(a) (Doc. 263), Defendant’s Brief in 

Opposition (Doc. 266), and Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. 274). The Court now rules as follows. 

On September 16, 2024, the Clerk of Court entered judgment. (Doc. 251). The 

judgment reads: “[P]ursuant to the Court’s Order filed September 16, 2024, judgment is 

entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant in the amount of $500.00 for statutory 

damages and $2,000.00 for punitive damages.” (Id.). On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed 

this Motion requesting the Court amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(a) in order to 

comply with Rule 23(c)(3). (Doc. 263 at 2). Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to amend the 

judgment under Rule 60(a) to clarify that “judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and the 

Class and against Defendant CenturyLink, Inc. in the amount of $500.00 in statutory 

damages per class member and $2,000.00 in punitive damages per class member.” (Doc. 

263-1 at 2 (emphasis added)).

Under Rule 60(a), a party may move to have the court “correct a clerical mistake or 

Lydia Bultemeyer,

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CenturyLink Incorporated,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-14-02530-PHX-SPL

ORDER

Case 2:14-cv-02530-SPL Document 287 Filed 11/18/24 Page 1 of 7
2

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

a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, 

or other part of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). After an appeal has been docketed and 

is pending, a district court may only correct such a mistake with the appellate court’s leave. 

See id. On October 16, 2024, Defendant filed an appeal with the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 273). The Ninth Circuit has stayed appellate 

proceedings of this case until this Court rules on the present Motion to Amend (Doc. 263), 

Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. 267), and

Defendant’s Motion for New Trial (Doc. 269). (Doc. 276). Thus, the Court retains 

jurisdiction to rule on this Motion.

Rule 23(c)(3)(B) provides that the judgment in a class action must, “for any class 

certified under Rule 23(b)(3), include and specify or describe those to whom the Rule 

23(c)(2) notice was directed, who have not requested exclusion, and whom the court finds 

to be class members.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(B). On February 2, 2023, this Court certified 

the class in this case pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). (Doc. 178). Plaintiff requests the Court 

amend the judgment (Doc. 251) to include a description of those to whom the Rule 23(c)(2) 

notice was directed who have not requested exclusion, and whom the Court finds to be 

class members, in accordance with Rule 23(c)(3). (Doc. 263). On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff 

filed a Notice Regarding the Completion of Class Notice and Class Member Requests for 

Exclusion, which detailed that 56,075 potential class members received the class notice 

and zero recipients requested to opt out. See (Docs. 196 at 1, 196-1 at 3–4). In the class 

certification, the Court defined the class as:

[E]very individual in the United States about whom Defendant 

CenturyLink obtained a consumer credit report using the 

personal information the individual entered into CenturyLink’s 

ecommerce website from November 14, 2012 through 

November 14, 2014 and who did not sign an arbitration 

agreement or class action waiver with CenturyLink.

(Doc. 178 at 10).

Defendant opposes such an amendment to the judgment, arguing that the class 

should be decertified because some of the individuals provided class notice do not qualify 

Case 2:14-cv-02530-SPL Document 287 Filed 11/18/24 Page 2 of 7
3

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

as class members, and therefore, the judgment should not include reference to the group 

that received class notice or a description of those who meet the class definition. (See Doc. 

266 at 2–3). Defendant further argues that a count of class members amounting to 

Plaintiff’s proposed class size of 56,075 should not be included in the judgment, as that 

number does not definitively reflect the correct class size. (Id. at 4–5). Defendant 

acknowledges that the reason the list of possible class members may not be limited strictly 

to individuals who meet the class definition is because of Defendant’s difficulties searching 

its records to identify which individuals are class members. (Doc. 178 at 7). 

This Court has repeatedly rejected Defendant’s attempts to escape liability by 

challenging the sufficiency of the class list while also refusing to provide a complete and 

accurate record of individuals who qualify under the class definition. See (Doc. 178 at 9 

(“[I]t is undisputed that there are existing records that would identify class members; 

Defendant merely asserts that a manual review may be difficult and time-consuming.”)). 

As Plaintiff notes in its Reply, Defendant is the only party that knows—or could know—

the identities of the individuals whose credit reports it obtained during the class period and 

who did not sign a class action waiver or arbitration agreement. (Doc. 274 at 2). Even if 

class members had checked their credit reports within a two-year period following 

Defendant’s pull of their credit, the record demonstrates that it still would be unclear that 

it was CenturyLink who conducted the credit check, as Defendant’s credit checks were 

conducted under the name “Qwest Landline.” (Doc. 245 at 158). All told, Defendant is the 

only party who holds information on who meets the class definition, and as such, Defendant 

is the party responsible for providing that information. See Campbell v. United States, 365 

U.S. 85, 96 (1961) (“[T]he ordinary rule, based on considerations of fairness, does not 

place the burden upon a litigant of establishing facts peculiarly within the knowledge of 

his adversary.”); Alaska Dep’t of Env’t Conservation v. E.P.A., 540 U.S. 461, 494 n.17

(2004) (“Among other considerations, allocations of burdens of production and persuasion 

may depend on which party—plaintiff or defendant, petitioner or respondent—has made 

the ‘affirmative allegation’ or ‘presumably has peculiar means of knowledge.’” (citation 

Case 2:14-cv-02530-SPL Document 287 Filed 11/18/24 Page 3 of 7
4

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

omitted)).

To that end, the Court rejects Defendant’s argument that the present Motion should 

be denied “because there is no factual basis for the Court to make a finding as to the number 

of class members,” as Defendant is the party that provided the evidence establishing the 

class size of 56,075. (Doc. 266 at 8). Defendant had ample opportunity to search its records 

and provide accurate, complete information on which individuals fall within the class.

After undertaking a manual and algorithmic review of the Abandoned Cart Report it 

provided, which formed the basis of the class list, Defendant filed an unopposed Motion 

for Leave to Substitute Lists of Possible Class Members. (See Docs. 193; 193-1). On 

December 8, 2023, the Court granted that motion. (Doc. 195). The revised class list 

identified 48,665 unique individuals that Defendant was unable to identify as its customers, 

and 8,025 unique individuals that it identified as customers but could not confirm had 

signed a class waiver or arbitration provision. (Doc. 193 at 3). In seeking to update the 

class list, Defendant acknowledged that “[t]he updated list of possible class members 

excludes people on the prior lists whom Lumen has now determined are not class members 

because they signed arbitration and/or class-waiver agreements.” (Id.). Additionally, 

Defendant noted that “any notice should only be sent to the possible class members” on 

the updated class list in response to Plaintiff’s settlement administrator’s concerns that 

providing notice to non-class members could dilute the effectiveness of the notice. (Id. at 

4). Of the 56,690 individuals on Defendant’s updated class list, Plaintiff successfully 

provided notice to 56,075 listed individuals. (Docs. 196 at 1; 196-1 at 3–4). 

Along with the class list Defendant provided, Eric Fressle, CenturyLink’s Lead 

Credit Analyst, testified at trial that Defendant ran external credit checks on approximately 

12,000 to 15,000 potential customers per month during the class period, and that 

approximately 40 percent of those individuals did not complete the order process. (See

Doc. 247 at 58–60). Even at the lowest end of Fressle’s approximation, this testimony 

indicates Defendant ran external credit checks on roughly double the number of individuals 

than Defendant’s proposed class list tallied. However, Defendant identified only 56,690 

Case 2:14-cv-02530-SPL Document 287 Filed 11/18/24 Page 4 of 7
5

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

individuals as potential class members on its substitute class list, and only 56,075 of those 

individuals received class notice and the opportunity to opt out of litigation. (Docs. 193 at 

3; 196 at 1). See generally Besinga v. United States, 923 F.2d 133, 137 (9th Cir. 1991)

(finding that only putative class members who receive Rule 23(c)(2) notice are bound by 

the judgment and res judicata). Thus, the Court finds that the class includes—and the 

judgment applies to—the 56,075 individuals who received class notice, whom Defendant 

identified as individuals it ran credit checks on, and whom Defendant did not determine 

had signed a class action waiver or arbitration provision. 

Although Defendant contends in its Response that it manually searched and

identified one member of the class list who signed a class action waiver and thus does not 

qualify as class member (Doc. 266 at 6–7), Defendant fails to identify any other members 

on the class list exempt from the class, explain why it was unable to undertake similar 

manual searches to identify such individuals earlier in the proceedings, or propose a

different number of class members. The Court rejects the argument that merely because 

Defendant either could not or would not thoroughly search the information that only it 

holds, and because it speculates that some members of the class list do not qualify as class 

members, no class members should recover. See generally Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 

844 F.3d 1121, 1131 (9th Cir. 2017) (rejecting argument that class certification requires an 

administratively feasible means of identifying class members because “Defendants will 

have similar opportunities to individually challenge the claims of absent class members if 

and when they file claims for damages.”). Indeed, the Court is unpersuaded by the 

Defendant’s concerns about non-class members receiving damages, as the Ninth Circuit 

has noted that Defendants can make individualized claim determinations at the claims 

administration stage, where “parties have long relied on claim administrators, various 

auditing processes, sampling for fraud detection, follow-up notices to explain the claims 

process, and other techniques tailored by the parties and the court to validate claims.” Id.

(citations and quotations omitted). In any event, this Motion to Amend is the improper 

setting for Defendant’s attempts to further litigate the class list, as this Motion solely 

Case 2:14-cv-02530-SPL Document 287 Filed 11/18/24 Page 5 of 7
6

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

addresses the Court’s duty to comply with Rule 23(c)(3)(B).

As such, the Court finds that the judgment may be amended in accordance with Rule 

23(c)(3) to specify that individuals who received the class notice, did not request exclusion, 

and meet the above-stated class definition qualify as class members. This aligns with the 

Court’s repeated findings that only individuals on the class notice list who meet the class 

definition constitute class members. (Docs. 235 at 7; 178 at 10). In sum, the Court elects 

to exercise its Rule 60(a) discretion to amend the judgment in accordance with Rule

23(c)(3) and to reflect the Court and the parties’ shared understanding of the class bound 

by judgment at the time of class certification. Therefore, the Court will amend the judgment 

(1) to conform with Rule 23(c)(3)(B) and (2) to specify that the judgment is entered in the 

amount of $500.00 in statutory damages per class member and $2,000.00 in punitive 

damages per class member. 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:14-cv-02530-SPL Document 287 Filed 11/18/24 Page 6 of 7
7

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

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Clerk’s Judgment 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) (Doc. 263) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall amend the judgment (Doc. 251) 

to add the following language: “This judgment applies to the 56,075 individuals to whom 

the Rule(c)(2) notice was directed, who fall under the certified class definition, none of 

whom has requested exclusion, and whom the Court finds to be members of the certified 

class in this matter.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall amend the judgment (Doc. 251) 

at lines 17, 18, and 19 to state: “IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the 

Court’s Order filed September 16, 2024, judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and 

against Defendant in the amount of $500.00 for statutory damages per class member and 

$2,000.00 for punitive damages per class member.”

Dated this 15th day of November, 2024.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-02530-SPL Document 287 Filed 11/18/24 Page 7 of 7