1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

SKY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 1:20-cv-02114 

Honorable Edmond E. Chang 

DEFENDANT FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION’S MOTION TO REASSIGN 

AND CONSOLIDATE RELATED CASES 

Pursuant to Local Rule 40.4 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2), Defendant Fair Isaac Corporation 

(“FICO”), by and through its undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that this Court designate 

First Choice Federal Credit Union v. Fair Isaac Corp., No. 1:20-cv-02516, and Alcoa Community 

Federal Credit Union v. Fair Isaac Corp., No. 1:20-cv-02259, as related cases to this action, and 

reassign those cases to Judge Chang, as the presiding Judge over the lowest-filed related case. As 

discussed below, the complaints filed in the First Choice and Alcoa cases are materially identical 

to the complaints filed in this action and in another case that is already pending before Judge 

Chang, Amalgamated Bank v. Fair Isaac Corp., No. 1:20-cv-02533. All four complaints 

(collectively, the “Related Actions”) also seek to certify the same putative class. 

In addition, in the interests of judicial and party economy, FICO further requests that 

following reassignment the Court consolidate the Related Actions into No. 1:20-cv-02114 and 

order plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint or direct counsel representing the parties in these 

cases to meet and confer and propose a schedule for plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint. 

In further support of this motion, FICO states as follows: 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 26 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:102
2 

1. On April 2, 2020, Sky Federal Credit Union filed a complaint against FICO in the 

instant action. Dkt. 1. The complaint brought claims under the Sherman Act for monopolization, 

conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in the market for business to 

business (“B2B”) credit scores, as well as parallel claims under state law. 

2. On April 23, 2020, First Choice Federal Credit Union filed a materially identical 

complaint against FICO, First Choice Federal Credit Union v. Fair Isaac Corp., No. 1:20-cv02516 (N.D. Ill.), bringing monopolization, conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint 

of trade claims in the same market and based on the same contractual provisions. A copy of the 

complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The First Choice case is pending before Chief Judge 

Pallmeyer. 

3. On April 24, 2020, Amalgamated Bank filed another materially identical complaint 

against FICO, Amalgamated Bank v. Fair Isaac Corp., No. 1:20-cv-02533 (N.D. Ill.), bringing the 

same monopolization, conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade claims as in 

First Choice and Sky Federal. A copy of the Amalgamated Bank complaint is attached hereto as 

Exhibit B. The case is pending before Judge Chang and thus does not need to be reassigned. 

4. On April 27, 2020, Alcoa Community Federal Credit Union filed a fourth 

materially identical complaint against FICO, Alcoa Community Federal Credit Union v. Fair Isaac 

Corp., No. 1:20-cv-02259 (N.D. Ill.), bringing the same monopolization, conspiracy to 

monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade claims as in the foregoing cases, as well as an 

attempted monopolization claim. A copy of the complaint in Alcoa is attached as Exhibit C. The 

Alcoa case is pending before Judge Norgle. 

5. Under LR 40.4(b), “[a] case may be reassigned to the calendar of another judge if 

it is found to be related to an earlier-numbered case assigned to that judge.” Cases are related if 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 26 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:103
3 

(among other things) they (a) involve some of the same issues of fact or law, or (b) in class action 

suits, if one or more of the classes involved is the same. LR 40.4(a). The decision to reassign cases 

is within the discretion of the Court. See Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, 2013 WL 

5567771, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2013). 

(a) All of the Related Actions involve the same issues of fact and law. Each 

brings identical claims for monopolization, conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint 

of trade. See Ex. A ¶¶ 99-145; Ex. B ¶¶ 97-143; Ex. C ¶¶ 90-121, 135-148; Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 101-147. In 

particular, each complaint challenges the same provisions in FICO’s agreements with credit 

bureaus as the source of the allegedly anticompetitive restrictions. See Ex. A ¶¶ 99-145; Ex. B ¶¶ 

97-143; Ex. C ¶¶ 90-121; Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 101-147. Each complaint’s allegations are otherwise materially 

similar, with multiple passages that appear to be copied verbatim from each other. See generally

Dkt. 1 and Ex. A-C. 

(b) In addition, all plaintiffs in the Related Actions seek to represent an identical 

class of “B2B Purchasers residing in the United States that directly purchased a FICO Score from 

Fair Isaac and/or a Credit Bureau during the Class Period.” Ex. A ¶ 84; Ex. B ¶ 86; Dkt. 1 ¶ 86; 

see also Ex. C ¶ 80 (defining the class as “[a]ll persons or entities in the United States and its 

territories that purchased B2B Credit Scores directly from Fair Isaac and/or a Credit Bureau . . . .”). 

6. Related cases may be reassigned to the judge overseeing the lowest-numbered case 

if (i) both cases are pending in this Court; (ii) the handling of both cases by the same judge is likely 

to result in a substantial saving of judicial time and effort; (iii) the earlier case has not progressed 

to the point where designating a later filed case as related would be likely to delay the proceedings 

in the earlier case substantially; and (iv) the cases are susceptible of disposition in a single 

proceeding. LR 40.4(b). Under this test, reassignment of the Related Actions to Judge Chang, who 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 26 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:104
4 

is presiding over the lowest-numbered case (Sky Federal) as well as the Amalgamated Bank case, 

will best facilitate the just and efficient resolution of these actions. 

(i) All of the Related Actions are pending in this Court. 

(ii) Reassignment of the Related Actions before Judge Chang will result in 

substantial judicial economy, especially in light of the identical class definitions in the complaints, 

whereas allowing these cases to proceed separately would create a significant risk of duplicate 

motions practice and inconsistent judgments within this district. 

(iii) Designating and transferring First Choice and Alcoa would not delay 

proceedings in any of the Related Actions. Pursuant to the Court’s April 17 order and Third 

Amended General Order 20-0012 issued by Chief Judge Pallmeyer on April 24, FICO’s response 

to the complaint in Sky Federal is not due until June 23, 2020 and the initial status conference is 

currently scheduled for June 2. FICO waived service in the First Choice case, making its response 

to the complaint currently due on June 23. FICO has not yet been served or asked to waive service 

in Amalgamated Bank or Alcoa. 

(iv) Given the nearly complete overlap in allegations and claims, the Related 

Actions can be resolved in a single proceeding through a coordinated motion to dismiss and, if 

necessary, coordinated discovery, summary judgment, class certification, and trial. 

7. The cover sheet in the Sky Federal action identifies another case, Fair Isaac Corp. 

v. TransUnion LLC, No. 1:17-cv-08318 (N.D. Ill.), as potentially related. See Dkt. 2. The 

TransUnion case is currently pending before Judge Coleman. FICO does not believe transfer of 

the Related Actions to Judge Coleman is appropriate under LR 40.4(b) for two reasons. 

(a) First, the Related Actions raise numerous issues not present in the 

TransUnion litigation and vice versa. TransUnion started as a commercial dispute between FICO 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 26 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:105
5 

and TransUnion for breach of contract, violation of the Copyright Act, and other asserted claims. 

In response to FICO’s claims, TransUnion filed a number of counterclaims, including 

monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, breach of contract, Lanham Act and false 

advertising claims, and a request for contract reformation. See No. 1:17-cv-08318, Dkt. 38 (public 

redacted version). Unlike the antitrust claims in the Related Actions, TransUnion does not bring 

any Section 1 claims or a conspiracy to monopolize claim. Indeed, according to the plaintiffs in 

the Related Actions, one of FICO’s alleged co-conspirators is TransUnion. By the same token, the 

TransUnion case raises a host of contract and other questions not present in the Related Actions. 

Moreover, unlike the Related Actions, the TransUnion case is not a putative class action. 

Because of these factual and procedural differences, FICO does not believe that having the 

same judge handle the Related Actions and TransUnion would lead to substantial savings of 

judicial time and effort. See, e.g., Martin v. Midland Funding LLC, 2011 WL 3876965, at *2 (N.D. 

Ill. Aug. 31, 2011) (declining to reassign cases where “aside from a single cause of action against 

the same defendant, the cases are very different”); Teamsters Local 705 Pension v. A.D. Conner, 

Inc., 2011 WL 1674839, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 4, 2011) (same where cases would require “different 

legal findings and damages calculations”); Hollinger Int’l, Inc. v. Hollinger, Inc., 2004 WL 

1102327, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2004) (same where cases involved distinct claims and one would 

“require the Court to decide whether to certify a class” while the other would not); cf. Karamelion 

LLC v. Elexa Consumer Prods., Inc., No. 1:19-cv-6329 (N.D. Ill.), Dkt. 23 (Jan. 29, 2020) (Chang, 

J.) (declining to reassign where, though there “is some overlap in the asserted claims and the 

anticipated defenses,” “it is not likely that a single trial would be convened to resolve the dispute”). 

(b) Second, unlike the Related Actions, which have not progressed beyond the 

recent filing of the complaints, the TransUnion case has been pending for three years. Written 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 26 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:106
6 

discovery and document production in TransUnion is scheduled for substantial completion in June, 

and would have been completed sooner but for automatic extensions issued in response to the 

COVID-19 pandemic. The parties also were in the midst of preparing for an upcoming mediation 

before Magistrate Judge Jantz in April before it was taken off calendar in light of the pandemic; a 

telephonic hearing is currently scheduled to proceed on May 4. 

Given the advanced state of the TransUnion litigation and these impending deadlines, 

FICO expects that reassignment of the Related Actions to Judge Coleman would delay the 

proceedings in TransUnion substantially. See, e.g., Williams v. Walsh Construction, 2007 WL 

178309, at *2-3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 16, 2007) (declining to reassign case where the parties in the first 

case had unsuccessfully attempted settlement and discovery was shortly scheduled to close). 

8. Finally, the Court has authority to consolidate separately captioned lawsuits into 

one case when, as here, the actions “involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

42(a)(2). “The question of whether to grant consolidation is a matter of discretion for the trial 

court” and “[i]n exercising that discretion, a court should consider whether the 

proposed consolidation would promote convenience and judicial economy, and whether it would 

cause prejudice to any party.” Sylverne v. Data Search. N.Y., Inc., 2008 WL 4686163, at *1 (N.D. 

Ill. May 28, 2008) (citations omitted). Because consolidation would promote significant party and 

judicial economy and would not prejudice any party, FICO asks that the Court order consolidation 

of the cases discussed herein and direct plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint. See N. Miami 

Beach Gen. Employees Retirement Fund v. Parkinson, 2011 WL 12465137, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 

5, 2011) (ordering consolidation of related class actions and filing of consolidated complaint); see 

also Smith v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 301 F.R.D. 284, 286 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (ordering 

plaintiffs to file consolidated complaint following consolidation of separate class actions). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 26 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:107
7 

9. Prior to filing this motion, counsel for FICO conferred with counsel for plaintiffs 

in the Related Actions. Plaintiffs have advised FICO that they do not oppose reassignment and 

consolidation of these actions before the same District Judge, are amenable to filing a consolidated 

complaint, and agree that FICO’s responsive pleading obligations should be suspended pending 

the filing of a consolidated complaint. However, plaintiffs contend that the Related Actions should 

be re-assigned to Judge Coleman, who as discussed is presiding over Fair Isaac Corp. v. 

TransUnion LLC, 1:17-cv-08318 (N.D. Ill.). FICO disagrees, and respectfully submits that the 

actions should be consolidated before Judge Chang for the reasons set forth above. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, FICO respectfully requests that this Court enter an order: 

(a) Finding that First Choice Federal Credit Union v. Fair Isaac Corp., No.

1:20-cv-02516 (N.D. Ill.), and Alcoa Community Federal Credit Union v. Fair Isaac Corp., No. 

1:20-cv-02559 (N.D. Ill.), are related cases to this action; 

(b) Transferring First Choice and Alcoa to Judge Chang for further proceedings 

pursuant to L.R. 40.4(d); 

(c) Consolidating this action and the First Choice, Amalgamated Bank, and

Alcoa actions (collectively, the “Related Actions”) into the lowest-numbered case, No. 1:20-cv02114; and 

(d) Directing plaintiffs in the Related Actions to file a consolidated complaint, 

or directing counsel for the parties to meet and confer regarding a proposed schedule for the 

plaintiffs in the Related Actions to file a consolidated complaint. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 26 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:108
8 

Dated: April 29, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Britt M. Miller 

Michael A. Olsen 

Britt M. Miller 

J. Gregory Deis 

Matthew D. Provance 

MAYER BROWN LLP 

71 South Wacker Drive 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 782-0600 

molsen@mayerbrown.com 

bmiller@mayerbrown.com 

gdeis@mayerbrown.com 

mprovance@mayerbrown.com 

Counsel for Defendant Fair Isaac 

Corporation 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 26 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:109
9 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Britt M. Miller, an attorney, hereby certify that on April 29, 2020, I caused a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT FAIR ISAAC CORPORATION’S MOTION TO 

REASSIGN AND CONSOLIDATE RELATED CASES to be filed and served electronically 

via the Court’s CM/ECF system. 

In addition, a courtesy copy of this filing has been delivered by electronic mail to counsel 

of record in First Choice Federal Credit Union v. Fair Isaac Corp., No. 1:20-cv-02516 (N.D. Ill.), 

Alcoa Community Federal Credit Union v. Fair Isaac Corp., No. 1:20-cv-02259 (N.D. Ill.), and 

Amalgamated Bank v. Fair Isaac Corp., No. 1:20-cv-02533 (N.D. Ill.). 

 /s/ Britt M. Miller 

Attorney for Fair Isaac Corporation 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 26 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:110