Following the en banc decision in In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig. (Espinoza v. Ahearn) (9th Cir. 2019) 926 F.3d 539, this decision holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in avoiding a detailed analysis of varying applicable state laws in certifying a setlttement-only class in this case.  That was particularly true as one of the class’ key claims arose under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, which applied to all class members and could be proved by common evidence.  Given that common claim, also certifying the settlement class on state law claims was no abuse of discretion despite evidence that state laws varied with respect to those claims.  It is generally not legal error for a district court to hold that a settlement class satisfies predominance, particularly for a class asserting a unifying federal claim, without first performing a choice-of-law analysis.