Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document64 Filed10/14/09 Page1 of 2

1 Jack R. Nelson (SBN 111863) Email: jnelson@reedsmith.com
2 Heather B. Hoesterey (SBN 201254) Email: hhoesterey@reedsmith.com
3 REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800
4 San Francisco, CA 94105

5 Telephone: + 1 415543 8700 Facsimile: +1 415391 8269
6 Attorneys for Defendant Wachovia Mortgage
7 FSB, f/k/a World Savings Bank, FSB

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

~
Q;''"".i 11
0
'5

N(I)

12

11. 0>

...J £;

...J .5

I

"0

13

I-
e~n

0>
E
.E
0.

0 W W
~

:E f' c0>:
"'0".

14 15

~

:0

~
"0

16

J!l

~

<C 17

SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION

LETICIA ZAMORA and DANIEL PEREZ and ELIZABETH PEREZ,
Plaintiffs,
vs .

No.: C 07 4603 JSW
lPR OP08EDt ORDER APPROVING
SETTLEMENTS AND DISMISSING ACTION

WACHOVIA CORPORATION and WORLD SAVINGS BANK,
Defendants.

Hon. Jeffrey S. White

18

19
WHEREAS Defendant Wachovia Mortgage FSB, formerly known as "World Savings
20
Bank FSB" ("Defendant") and Plaintiffs Leticia Zamora and Daniel and Elizabeth Perez
21 ("Plaintiffs") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their respective undersigned counsel of
22 record, have informed the Court that proposed settlements have been reached as between Defendant
23 and Zamora and as between Defendant and the Perezes (collectively, the "Settlements"), and have
24 further requested that the Court review and approve the terms ofboth of the Settlements and
25 thereafter (1) dismiss Plaintiffs' individual claims against Defendant with prejudice, and (2) dismiss
26 without prejudice the putative class claims alleged in the First Amended Class Action Complaint
27 (the "Complaint") in this matter; and
28

No.: C 074603 JSW

1

[P1<:OPO~Eig3 ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENTS AND DISMISSING ACTION

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document64 Filed10/14/09 Page2 of 2

1

WHEREAS the Court has reviewed the record in this action, the Parties' October 14, 2009

2 Stipulation and Request for Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Action, the accompanying

3 supporting Declarations of Jack R. Nelson and Wendy J. Harrison and the terms of the proposed

4 settlements among the Parties described therein, as well as the form of settlement agreements

5 submitted by the Parties to the Court.

6

THEREFORE the Court approves each of the Settlements and hereby: (1) dismisses with

7

prejudice the individual claims made by Plaintiffs in the Complaint and bars each of the Plaintiffs

8

from reasserting such claims in the future, whether individually or as a member of any class; and (2)

9

dismisses without prejudice the class action allegations set forth in the Complaint.

10

l!'

to ~

to Qj

11

0

'0

~" 12

" Il.

-l -l

5 .!:

I

"0

13

I-
e~n 0wwr:x:

" E
.E
:.ac:. ~
c: 1:: ato.

14 15

~

:c

~
"0

16

~

~

« 17

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 10, 2009

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No.: C 07 4603 JSW

2

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENTS AND DISMISSING ACTION

 
 Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document62 Filed10/14/09 Page1 of 9

1 Jack R. Nelson (SBN 111863) Email: jnelson@reedsmith.com
2 Heather B. Hoesterey (SBN 201254) Email: hhoesterey@reedsmith.com
3 REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800
4 San Francisco, CA 94105

5 Telephone: + 1 415 543 8700 Facsimile: +1415391 8269
6 Attorneys for Defendant Wachovia Mortgage
7 FSB, f/k/a World Savings Bank, FSB

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

~
'~" a'"; 11
0
'5

N
a.. (f)
--I ,Q;;)

12

--I .5

I I-
~

-g E
.g

13

(/) a.

Cl UJ UJ 0::

:E f! cQ) t::
'a" .

14 15

:~c

~
"0

16

J!l

~

« 17

SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION

LETICIA ZAMORA and DANIEL PEREZ and ELIZABETH PEREZ,
Plaintiffs,
vs .

No.: C 07 4603 JSW
STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION

WACHOVIA CORPORATION and WORLD SAVINGS BANK,

Hon. Jeffrey S. White

Defendants.

18

19

Defendant Wachovia Mortgage FSB, formerly known as "World Savings Bank FSB"

20 ("Defendant") and Plaintiffs Leticia Zamora and Daniel and Elizabeth Perez ("Plaintiffs")

21 (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their respective undersigned counsel of record, submit

22 the following joint request for approval of the terms of proposed settlements as between Defendant

23 and Plaintiffs individually (collectively, the "Settlements"), and further request that, in accordance

24 with the terms of the Settlement, the Court dismiss Plaintiffs' individual claims with prejudice.

25 Defendant and counsel for Plaintiffs further request that the Court dismiss, without prejudice, all

26 putative class claims alleged in the First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") on file

27 in this matter.

28

No.: C 07 4603 JSW

- 1-

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document62 Filed10/14/09 Page2 of 9

1

The Parties and their counsel stipulate as follows:

2
BACKGROUND
3

4

1. This action was initiated on September 5, 2007, and alleged claims for relief for

5 alleged violations ofthe Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and sections 1981 and

6 1982 of the Civil Rights Act on behalf of Plaintiffs individually as well a putative class consisting of

7 certain customers of Defendant. No class has been certified in this action.

8

2. In lieu of formal discovery, and with the consent of the Court, the Parties engaged in

9

informal exchanges of information in anticipation of a private mediation before The Hon. Edward

10

.~,

".,
a;

11

Infante (ret.). Mediation sessions were held on May 13 and September 15,2008 and February 25,

0
'5

2009, following which consideration for tentative settlements of Plaintiffs' individual claims was

J.!,l
iii

12

" !l.
...J £;

proposed and ultimately agreed to by the Parties, subject to, inter alia, approval by this Court.

...J .S

I

"0

13

" I-
~

E
.E

(f)
0ww
Cl:

:cc .
~
t."c,
c.

14 15

SETTLEMENT

:~c

3. The specific financial terms of the Settlements are described for the Court in the

~
"0

16

~
,§

concurrently filed Declaration of Jack R. Nelson in Support of Stipulation and Request for Order

« 17

Approving Settlement and Dismissing Action ("Nelson Dec."), and the forms of agreement attached

18

as Exhibits A and B thereto, and the concurrently filed Declaration of Wendy J. Harrison in Support

19

of Stipulation and Request for Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Action ("Harrison

20

Dec.") and the summary of fees and costs attached as Exhibit A thereto.

21

22

4. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel have agreed that the terms ofthe Settlements are

23 satisfactory to Plaintiffs and represent a fair compromise of all of Plaintiffs' claims against

24 Defendant. Plaintiffs thus wish to accept such terms, cease all direct or indirect participation in this

25 or any other action against Defendant and release Defendant from any claim Plaintiffs may have,

26 believes that they may have or discovers that they may have, whether brought by them directly or by

27 anyone on their behalf.

28

No.: C 07 4603 JSW

-2-

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document62 Filed10/14/09 Page3 of 9

1

REQUESTED DISPOSITION OF ACTION

2 4. In addition to seeking approval of the Settlement and dismissal of Plaintiffs'
3 individual claims with prejudice, the Parties and Plaintiffs' counsel jointly request that the Court at
4 this time also dismiss, without prejudice, the putative class allegations set forth in the Complaint, as
5 Plaintiffs' counsel are not at this time pursuing such allegations further.
6

7 STANDARD FOR APPROVAL OF PLAINTIFFS' SETTLEMENTS AND DISMISSALS

8

5. The Parties agree that the Court may, but is not necessarily required to, utilize the

9

tests for collusion and prejudice set forth in Diaz v. Trust Territory a/the Pacific Islands, 876 F. 2d

10

I!!
'~"

1401, 1408-1410 (9th Cir. 1989), in determining whether to approve the Settlements and voluntary

a'"; 11

0
'0

dismissal of the class action allegations in the Complaint.

~ 12

Il.. --J

:Q;)

--J .s
I u

13

6. Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not mandate that the Court

I-
~rn
0 W
aW::

Q)
E
.E
:.ac:.
E cQ:)
t
'a" .

14 15

approve either the individual settlement between Defendants and Plaintiff or the separate dismissal (without prejudice) ofthe alleged class claims in the Complaint.! After amendment in 2003, Rule

~
:c

l!1
u

16

23(e)(I)(A) provided that "[t]he court must approve any settlement, voluntary dismissal, or

J!!

~

<C 17 compromise of the claims, issues or defenses of a certified class" and, since a further amendment in

18 2007, the Rule has provided that "[t]he claims, issues or defenses of a certified class may be settled,

19 voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court's approval." Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(e).

20 Thus, by its current plain language, and in light of the fact that the Rule's original wording was

21 amended in 2003 specifically to add a qualifier that it applied to only "certified" classes, Rule 23(e),

22 standing alone, does not obligate a district court to approve the resolution of a putative class action

23 in which no class has been certified. As the Advisory Committee Notes to the 2003 Amendments

24 point out, even though Rule 23(e) was amended in 2003 "to strengthen the process of reviewing

25 proposed class-action settlements," then-Rule 23(e)(1)(A) was amended concurrently in order to

26

27 1 Because the proposed dismissal of Plaintiffs individual claims and the separate proposed dismissal of the putative
class claims are by stipulation of all parties, neither does Rule 41(a) require court approval to effectuate dismissal.
28

No.: C 07 4603 JSW

-3-

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document62 Filed10/14/09 Page4 of 9

1 "resolve[] the ambiguity" caused by its former statement that the court had to approve resolutions of

2 "a class action." Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23, Advisory Comm. Notes, 2003 Amendments, Subdivision

3 (e). The Notes state further that the problematic ambiguity was that this "language could be - and at

4 times was - read to require court approval of settlements with putative class representatives that

5 resolved only individual claims." Id. Thus, to clarify the more limited scope of a district court's

6 mandatory obligations under Rule 23(e), the wording of the Rule was changed to" require[] approval

7 only if the claims, issues or defenses of a certified class are resolved ...." Id.

8

7. The fact that Rule 23(e) no longer requires court approval of a pre-certification

9

dismissal of putative class claims without prejudice (which is all that is at issue here relative to the

10

~
"'"
a'"; 11
0
'5

putative class) does not mean that a district court must refrain from reviewing a proposed individual settlement or a proposed dismissal of class allegations, or that a district court may not exercise its

]l
r7l

12

."" 0...
..J

,:;

discretion to invoke Rule 23(e), or the Diaz opinion, as a guide for requiring a showing that the

..J

I

"0

13

I-
~
en
0 W
cW:::

" E
.E
:Cco
i!!
" c
t::
'C" o

14 15

settlement is non-collusive and non-prejudicial to the putative class. 2 Several district courts in this Circuit, including this Court, have thus elected to reference the approval provisions of Rule 23(e),

~:c

and the Diaz decision, when faced with pre-certification requests to approve, without notice to the

~
"0

16

]l
~

putative class, settlements by individual putative class representatives and accompanying voluntary

« 17

dismissal of pending putative class allegations. See Houston v. Cintas Corp., 2009 WL 921627

18 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3,2009); see also, Singer v. American Airlines Federal Credit Union, 2006 WL

19 3093759 at *2 (N.D. Cal.); see also Mansourian v. Board ofRegents ofthe University ofCalifornia

20 at Davis, 2007 WL 1722975 at *1 (E.D. Cal.).

21

22

8. The authority of a district court under Rule 23(d) to provide for "the fair conduct" of

23
2 Diaz was a pre-2003 case in which the Ninth Circuit held that Rule 23(e), as it was then worded, obligated a district
24 court to approve even pre-certification settlements and dismissals in any class action. 876 F. 2d at 1408. Based on its
determination, the Diaz court then held that, under Rule 23(e), a district court must "inquire into the terms and
25 circumstances of any dismissal or compromise to ensure that it is not collusive or prejudicial." Id. The court then posited
a series of circumstances in which there might be possible prejudice to putative class members. Id. Because the holding
26 and resulting analysis laid out in Diaz were premised on a conclusion that is no longer valid (i.e., that Rule 23(e)
mandates court approval of pre-certification settlements and dismissals), however, its directive that all settlements with
27 individual plaintiffs, and all pre-certification requests for voluntary dismissal of class allegations, must be tested under
Rule 23(e) is also no longer valid.
28

No.: C 07 4603 JSW

-4 -

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document62 Filed10/14/09 Page5 of 9

1 any action governed by Rule 23 (which includes every case brought but not yet certified as a class

2 action) permits a district court to test any request to "settle, compromise or voluntarily dismiss" any 3 class allegations. See, e.g., Shelton v. Parga, Inc., 582 F. 2d 1298, 1306 (4th Cir. 1978). In Shelton,

4 the Fourth Circuit referenced Rule 23(d)'s case management provisions as "authority for judicial

5 control over settlements and compromises, by representative parties or not," calling Rule 23(d) part

6 of the district court's "ample arsenal to checkmate any abuse of the class action procedure, if

7 unreasonable prejudice to absentee class members would result." 582 F. 2d at 1306. Accordingly,

8 this Court has the inherent authority to test the Settlements, and Plaintiffs' counsel's separate request

9 for dismissal of the class allegations in the Complaint, for collusiveness or undue prejudice to the

10 putative class. The factors laid out in the Diaz opinion constitute a proper standard for such a test.

~

<II

~

a<I;I

11

0

'0

THE SETTLEMENTS AND REQUESTED DISMISSAL MEET THE DIAZ STANDARDS

i 12

CL a>

--1 £

--1 .s

I

"0

13

9. In Diaz, the Ninth Circuit made clear that a "representative plaintiff fulfills his

I-
e~n

a>
E
.E a.

Cl UJ
UcrJ:

:E f! cQ) t a<II.

14 15

fiduciary duty toward the absent class members [if any pre-certification] dismissal or compromise ... is not collusive or prejudicial" to the putative class. 876 F. 2d at 1408 (citations omitted). Both the

~

:0

Jg
"0

16

Settlement and plaintiffs counsel's simultaneous but independent request to voluntarily dismiss the

.2!

~

<C 17 class allegations of the Complaint, without prejudice, easily meet both parts of this test.

18 The Resolution of this Action Is Not the Product of Collusion
19

20

10. The first test that Diaz sets forth for examining the dismissal or compromise of a class

21 action is whether the resolution is collusive. 876 F. 2d at 1408. Here, neither the Settlement nor the

22 separate request for dismissal of the class allegations of the Complaint can be so characterized.

23 Plaintiffs' Settlements Were Bargained At Arms' Length
24

25

11. The Settlements were reached after extensive negotiations that commenced at a

26 private, confidential mediation supervised by an experienced and respected neutral, the Hon. Edward

27 Infante of JAMS, and in further sessions supervised by Judge Infante, in which the parties were

28 represented by experienced counsel. Nelson Dec. at ~~ 2 and 5; Harrison Dec. at ~ 5. During the

No.: C 07 4603 JSW

- 5-

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document62 Filed10/14/09 Page6 of 9

1 mediation, Defendant made a presentation which explained its defenses. Nelson Dec. at ~ 5.

2

12. Defendant never made a formal offer to settle the class allegations in the Complaint.

3

Id. Instead, Defendant eventually extended offers to settle each ofthe Plaintiffs' individual claims

4 only. !d. at ~ 4. After substantial further negotiations, which were monitored by the mediator, the

5 Settlements were reached. Nelson Dec. at ~~ 2 and 3. Defendant's decision to settle with Plaintiffs

6

individually, and to reach a compromise with their legal counsel regarding their fees and costs,

7

related strictly to Defendants' (privileged and private) judgments about the size and nature of

8

Plaintiffs' loan transactions, the costs of defending the action both to date and moving forward and

9 other internal and confidential business considerations. See Nelson Dec. at ~ 4. The Settlements

10

1:'
'~"

were not the product of any collusion or intent to cause prejudice to the putative class. Id. at ~ 7;

~ 11

'5

Harrison Dec. at ~ 5.

§
'" a.. en
...J ,6

12

...J .!:;

Ir-
~
en

"0
'E"
.E
a.

0 W

:E
~

''""'" a:W <:: a.

13 14 15

13. There is an initial presumption that a proposed settlement is fair and reasonable when it is the result of arm's-length negotiations. See In re Excess Value Ins. Coverage Litig., No. M-2l84 (RMB), 2004 u.S. Dist. LEXIS 14822, at *34 (S.D.N.Y. July 30,2004) ("[w]here 'the Court

~ :c

~
"0

16

finds that the Settlement is the product of arm's length negotiations conducted by experienced

.,g~

« 17 counsel knowledgeable in complex [] litigation, the Settlement will enjoy a presumption of

18 fairness"'); In re Inter-Op Hip Prosthesis, Dab. Litig., 204 F.R.D. 359,380 (N.D. Ohio 2001)

19 ("when a settlement is the result of extensive negotiations by experienced counsel, the court should

20 presume it is fair"). Further, the opinion of experienced counsel, as here, is entitled to considerable

21 weight. Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909,922-23 (6th Cir. Ohio 1983) ("The court should defer

22 to the judgment of experienced counsel who has competently evaluated the strength of his proofs");

23 Kirkorian v. Borelli, 695 F. Supp. 446, 451 (N.D. Cal. 1988) (opinion of experienced counsel is

24 entitled to considerable weight); Boyd v. Bechtel Corp., 485 F. Supp. 610, 622 (N.D. Cal. 1979)

25 (recommendations of plaintiffs' counsel should be given a presumption of reasonableness).

26 The Decision to Dismiss All Class Allegations is Entirely Voluntary
27

28

14. Plaintiffs' counsel's request for voluntary dismissal of the class allegations in the

No.: C 07 4603 JSW

-6-

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document62 Filed10/14/09 Page7 of 9

1 Complaint is entirely independent of the Settlement and cannot be labeled collusive either. At no

2 time did Defendant demand or request, as part of the Settlements or otherwise, that the class
3 allegations of the Complaint be dismissed. Nelson Dec. at,-r,-r 5 and 7; Harrison Dec. at,-r 4.

4 Defendant has paid no consideration in exchange for the proposed dismissal without prejudice of

5 such claims, and no release(s) of such claims has been requested, promised or made part of the

6 proposed Settlement Agreements. Nelson Dec. at,-r 5; Harrison Dec. at,-r 4.

7 There Is No Possibility of Prejudice to the Alleged Putative Class
8

9

15. The second test that Diaz prescribes for examining the appropriateness of pre-

10 certification dismissal or compromise of class allegations is whether there is any possible prejudice

~

III

~ III
~

11

to the absent putative class members. 876 F. 2d at 1408. Here, the Settlements cannot present any

15

2
c7l

12

such prejudice because they in no way affect or bind the putative class. See Nelson Dec. at,-r 5;

" Il.
...J ;;

...J .£

I I-
~
(/J
0 w w
0::

'E""
.E
:cc .
l!!
"c:
1::
IcII.

13 14 15

Harrison Dec. at ,-r 4. As for the separate request for dismissal of the class allegations, it is clear that it too presents no possibility for prejudice.

:~a

16. Diaz posed three scenarios in which a potential for prejudice might exist in a pre-

~
'2"
~

16

certification resolution of class claims: "{l) class members' possible reliance on the filing of the

« 17

action if they are likely to know of it either because of publicity or other circumstances, (2) lack of

18 adequate time for class members to file other actions, because of a rapidly approaching statute of

19 limitations, [or] (3) any settlement or concession of class interests made by the class representative

20 or counsel in order to further their own interests." 876 F. 2d at 1408 (citations omitted). None of

21 these exist in the present action. Neither the filing of the Complaint in this action nor the pendency

22 of the action has been the subject of any publicity or news or media reports. Nelson Dec. at,-r 6. No

23 borrowers of Defendant have contacted Defendant about this action, and there has been no indication

24 that other borrowers are awaiting the results of this action in lieu of acting on their own behalf. Id.

25 This is enough to presume that no putative class member is aware of, much less relying on, the

26 pendency of this action to protect their interests. See Singer, 2006 WL 3093759 at *3.

27

28

17. The putative class will not be put into new and imminent danger of the running of a

No.: C 07 4603 JSW

-7-

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document62 Filed10/14/09 Page8 of 9

1 statute of limitations by virtue of dismissal of the class allegations. The statutes at issue were all

2 tolled as to the class with the filing of the complaint. See American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414

3 U.S. 538 (1974). This alone means that there is "ample time for absent [putative] class members to

4 commence a new action should they determine that such a case had merit." Singer, 2006 WL

5 3093759 at *4. In any event, this action was filed in September of2007, and Plaintiffs obtained their

6 loans in July of 2005 (more than two years before the class allegations were first made) and March

7 of2007 (less than 6 months before the class allegations were first made). Accordingly, dismissal of

8 those class claims now will not trigger an "imminent" running of any statute of limitations.

9

18. The third scenario for prejudice posed in Diaz - concession of class interests - is

10

~
'~"

wholly absent here. No such concession has been demanded or made. Nelson Dec. at ~ 5; Harrison

Q'"i 11

Cl
'0

Dec. at ~ 4_. The Settlements do not bind the putative class [id.], and the requested dismissal of

~ 12

a. a>
....I oS

class allegations is without prejudice. "There is no prejudice to defendants or to the putative class

....I .!;

I

"0

13

I-
~

a>
E
.E

[when] plaintiff and [his] counsel have determined, based on their evaluation of this matter, not to

(J)
0 W W 0::

:ac .
~ ca>: t::
g'a".

:.c

14 15

further prosecute the class claims in this case." Mansourian v. Board ofRegents, 2007 WL 1722975 at *1.

~
"0

16

~

~
« 17

19. For all ofthe foregoing reasons, the proposed resolution of this action meets all of the

18 standards set forth in Diaz, and thus the Parties jointly request that the Court issue the accompanying

19 [Proposed] Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Action.

20

21 Dated: October 14,2009.

REED SMITH LLP

22

By /s/

Jack R. Nelson (SBN 111863)

23

Heather B. Hoesterey (SBN 201254)

101 Second Street, Suite 1800

24

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: +1 415543 8700

25

Facsimile: +1 415391 8269

26

Attorneys for Defendant Wachovia Mortgage

FSB, f/k/a World Savings Bank, FSB

27

28

No.: C 07 4603 JSW

-8-

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document62 Filed10/14/09 Page9 of 9

1 Dated: October 14, 2009.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

~

III
;t

III
~

11

'5

~
c7l

12

0.. a>

...J £

...J .S

I

"0

13

I-
~

a>
E
.E

(f) a.

0
W

:E'
~ a>

14

" W
~

1::
IaII.

15

~

:0

~
"0

16

~

~

« 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
By /s/ Andrew S. Friedman (pro hac vice) Wendy J. Harrison (SBN 151090) 2901 North Central Avenue, Ste. 1000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3311 Telephone: 602-274-1100 Facsimile: 602-274-1199
RODDY KLEIN & RYAN Gary Klein (pro hac vice) Shennan Kavanagh 727 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02111-02810 (617) 357-5500 ext. 15
CHAVEZ & GERTLER, L.L.P. Mark A. Chavez (SBN 90858) Jonathan Gertler (SBN 111531) Nance F. Becker (SBN 99292) 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, California 94941 (415) 381-5599
COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP John J. Stoia, Jr. (CA SBN 141757) Theodore J. Pintar (CA SBN 31372) Leslie E. Hurst (CA SBN 178432) 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 231-1058
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS ADVOCATES Maeve Elise Brown (CA SBN 137512) 1305 Franklin Street, Suite 305 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 271-8843
BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Joseph H. Meltzer Edward W. Ciolko Joseph A. Weeden Peter Muhic Donna Siegel Moffa 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (610) 667-7706
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

No.: C 07 4603 JSW

-9-

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION

 
 Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document64 Filed10/14/09 Page1 of 2

1 Jack R. Nelson (SBN 111863) Email: jnelson@reedsmith.com
2 Heather B. Hoesterey (SBN 201254) Email: hhoesterey@reedsmith.com
3 REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800
4 San Francisco, CA 94105

5 Telephone: + 1 415543 8700 Facsimile: +1 415391 8269
6 Attorneys for Defendant Wachovia Mortgage
7 FSB, f/k/a World Savings Bank, FSB

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

~
;'". Q'"i 11
0
'5

N(I)

12

11. 0> ...J £;

...J .5

I

"0

13

I-
e~n

0>
E
.E
0.

0 W W
~

:E f' c0>:
"'0".

14 15

~

:0

~
"0

16

J!l

~

<C 17

SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION

LETICIA ZAMORA and DANIEL PEREZ and ELIZABETH PEREZ,
Plaintiffs,
vs .

No.: C 07 4603 JSW
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENTS AND DISMISSING ACTION

WACHOVIA CORPORATION and WORLD SAVINGS BANK,

Hon. Jeffrey S. White

Defendants.

18

19
WHEREAS Defendant Wachovia Mortgage FSB, formerly known as "World Savings
20 Bank FSB" ("Defendant") and Plaintiffs Leticia Zamora and Daniel and Elizabeth Perez
21 ("Plaintiffs") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their respective undersigned counsel of
22 record, have informed the Court that proposed settlements have been reached as between Defendant
23 and Zamora and as between Defendant and the Perezes (collectively, the "Settlements"), and have
24 further requested that the Court review and approve the terms ofboth of the Settlements and
25 thereafter (1) dismiss Plaintiffs' individual claims against Defendant with prejudice, and (2) dismiss
26 without prejudice the putative class claims alleged in the First Amended Class Action Complaint
27 (the "Complaint") in this matter; and
28

No.: C 074603 JSW

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENTS AND DISMISSING ACTION

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document64 Filed10/14/09 Page2 of 2

1

WHEREAS the Court has reviewed the record in this action, the Parties' October 14, 2009

2 Stipulation and Request for Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Action, the accompanying

3 supporting Declarations of Jack R. Nelson and Wendy J. Harrison and the terms of the proposed

4 settlements among the Parties described therein, as well as the form of settlement agreements

5 submitted by the Parties to the Court.

6

THEREFORE the Court approves each of the Settlements and hereby: (1) dismisses with

7

prejudice the individual claims made by Plaintiffs in the Complaint and bars each of the Plaintiffs

8

from reasserting such claims in the future, whether individually or as a member of any class; and (2)

9

dismisses without prejudice the class action allegations set forth in the Complaint.

10

.~,

.:;,:
a;

11

0

15

~ 12

Il. a>

-I £

-I .!:

I I-
e~n
0 W

"a0>
~
:cc .
~ a>

13 14

.," W
0::

1::
c.

15

:~c

Jg
"0

16

.'l

~

« 17

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

United States District Judge

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No.: C 07 4603 JSW

2

[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENTS AND DISMISSING ACTION

 
 Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page1 of 23

CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP

MARK A. CHAVEZ (Bar No. 90858)

2 JONATHAN E. GERtLER (Bar No. 111531)

NANCE F. BECKER (Bar No. 99292)_

3 42 Miller Avenue

Mi 11 Valley, Cal ifornia 94941

r::-filing 4 Telcphone: (415) 381-5599 Facsimile: (415) 381-5572

5 Email:jmQanr(kci@khcahva~vzegzcrgtel1C1Il.Cer0.1d1rl rh

6

nancc(cDcnavezgert]cLcom

_ _ _ '_~

CA"",,"'_'~

-_._-_.

7 Additional Counsel listed on signature page.

8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

V 9 10 1 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION

J2 JAVIER ZAMORA and LETICIA

J3

Z.,AMORA and DAN. IEL ELIZABETH PEREZ,

PEREZ

J\U.Ji.

14

Plainti ffs,

15 16 v.

17 WACl-IOVIA CORPORATION and 18 WORLD SAVINGS BANK,

19

Defendants.

20

21

Q~ 0 3 No. -/!!J
. LA S A~?i
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
1. Violations of the EquaJ Credit Opportunity Act;
2. Violations of the Fair Housing Act;
3. Violations of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
§1981;and

22

4. Violations of the Civil

Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.

23

§1982

24
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 25

26

27

28

ORIGINAL

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page2 of 23

I. Plaintiffs JAVIER ZAMORA and LETICIA ZAMORA ("Zamora")

2 and DANIEL PEREZ and ELIZABETH PEREZ ("Perez") (together, "Plaintiffs"),

3 by and through their attorneys, bring this action against Wachovia Corporation and

4 its wholly-owned subsidiary, World Savings Bank (together, "WACHOVIA" or

5 "Defendant") seeking redress for racially discriminatory lending practices under the

6 Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 169], et seq. ("ECOA"), the Fair

7 HOLising Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq ("FHA"), and the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.

8 §§ 1981 and 1982, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.

9

INTRODUCTION

10

2. This class action challenges Defendant W ACHOVIA's racially

11 discriminatory mortgage lending practices. Defendant WACHOVIA has, directly

12 and through the operations of its subsidiary World Savings Bank, engaged in both

13 intentional and disparate impact discrimination through its development and

14 implementation of mortgage pricing policies and procedures that provide financial

15 incentives to its authorized loan officers, mortgage brokers and correspondent

16 lenders to make subjective decisions to increase interest rates and charge additional

17 fees and costs to minority borrowers.

18

3. Defendant WACHOVIA's authorized loan officers, mortgage brokers

19 and correspondent lenders are given discretion - and actually encouraged and

20 incentivized to increase interest rates and charge additional fees to certain

21 borrowers. These policies directly lead to minorities receiving home loans with

22 higher interest rates and higher fees and costs than similarly situated non-minority

23 borrowers.

24

4. As used in this Complaint, "minority" or "minorities" shall refer to all

25 non-Caucasians and other minority racial groups protected under 42 U.S.C. §§

26 1981,] 982, and 3604, and 15 U.S.C. § 1691.

27

5. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all minorities (hereinafter

28 collectively referred to as the "Class" or "members of the Class") who have entered

COMPLAINT

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page3 of 23

into residential mortgage loan contracts that were financed or purchased by

2 WACHOVIA, and who have been subjected to racial discrimination.

6. Plaintiffs seek injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief, punitive

4 damages, and other monetary and non-monetary remedies for WACHOVIA's

5 racially discriminatory conduct.

6

JUrUSDICTION AND VENUE

7

7. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives

8 this Court original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law.

9

8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b) because a

10 substantial part orthe events giving rise to Plaintiffs' and the Class's claims

11 occurred in this District. In particular, Zamora resides in this District and World

12 Savings Bank financed Zamora's purchase of property located in this District out of

13 its offices located in this District.

14

PARTIES

15

9. Plainti ffs Zamora are Latino homeowners who reside at 1165 Orchid

16 Street, Livermore, CA 94551.

17

10. Plaintiffs Perez are Latino homeowners who reside in Laween,

18 Arizona.

19

11. Defendant Wachovia Corporation is a diversified financial services

20 company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Wachovia Corporation and

21 its subsidiaries conduct business and maintain branches throughout the United

22 States, including in this judicial district and elsewhere in California.

23

12. Wachovia Corporation merged with Golden West Financial Services in

24 2006. \Vorld Savings Bank, a federal savings bank which entered into the relevant

lending transactions with the plaintiffs, was at the time of the merger a subsidiary 26 Golden West with offices throughout the United States including California. 27 Following the merger, World Savings became a subsidiary of \Vachovia 28 Corporation. Defendants have informed consumers that they are in the process of

2

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page4 of 23

wholly integrating their banking serviees, and that no changes will result to the 2 terms or conditions of any outstanding loans. See, e.g., 3 hUl):/I\vaclJs)Via.~)mLinside/page/O,.131 10466 I 0469JlQ~.h1!DJ#l1umlx~rs (last 4 visited August 30, 2007). On information and belief, as a result of the merger 5 Wachovia Corporation assumed all rights, obligations and liabilities arising our of

6 and related to loans made by World Savings Bank, including the loans made to the

7 Plaintiffs herein.

8

FACTS

9 I.
10

HISTORICAL DISCRIMINATION IN AMERICAN MORTGAGE LENDING

11

13. Racial discrimination in America's mortgage lending industry has a

12 long legacy. As this Complaint attests, that unfortunate history continues to this

13 day due to discriminatory treatment of minority borrowers by mortgage banks such

14 as WACHOVIA.

15

14. The Joint Center for I-lousing Studies at Harvard University conducted

16 a study in 2005 called "The Dual M0l1gage Market: The Persistence of

17 Discrimination in Mortgage Lending," which summarizes that history well. It 18 states that "[i]n the immediate post-World War II period, racial discrimination in 19 mortgage lending was easy to spot. From govemment-sponsored racial covenants in 20 the Federal I-lousing Administration (FHA) guidelines to the redlining practices of 21 private mortgage lenders and tinancial institutions, minorities were denied access to 22 home mortgages in ways that severely limited their ability to purchase a home. 23 Today, mortgage lending discrimination is more subtle.... [NI]ore than three 24 decades after the enactment of national fair lending legislation, minority consumers 25 continue to have less-than-equal access to loans at the best prices and on the best 26 terms that their credit history, income, and other individual tinancial considerations 27 merit." 28

3

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page5 of 23

IS. The federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act ("HMDA") requires

2 mortgage lenders to report information about the home loans they process each 3 year. In 200S, lenders reported information on more than 30 million home loan

4 applications pursuant to HMDA. In 1989, Congress required lenders to begin

5 disclosing information about mortgage borrowers' race and ethnicity. In 2004,

6 concerned with potential racial discrimination in loan pricing, and recognizing that

7 racial or other types of diserimination can occur when loan officers and mortgage

8 brokers have latitude in setting interest rates, the Federal Reserve Board began

9 requiring lenders to also report information concerning rates, points, and fees,

10 eharged to borrowers on high-cost loans.

11

16. IIMDA data for 2004 reveals profound loan pricing disparities

12 between Hispanic borrowers and non-Hispanic whites even after controlling for

13 borrowers' gender, income, property location, and loan amount. After accounting

14 for those differences in the 2004 HMDA data, Hispanic borrowers were still almost

15 twice as likely to reeeive a higher-rate home loan as non-Hispanic whites. 16 (b..!lJr//w\Vw.respon~blelendirlR.org/pdCs/Te?til1lonv-Ernst061306.pdf (last viewed

17 August 14, 2007).) In a speech last year, the Vice-Chairman of the Federal Deposit

18 Insurance Corporation, Mmiin Gruenberg, discussed the 2004 HMDA data and

19 observed that that data "clearly indicated" that Hispanics are more likely to receive

20 high-cost home loans than are non-Hispanie whites. 21 (huQ.://\Yw'vv. rdic.gov/ne\\~s/ne\",s/speeches/archi ves/2006/chairman/spoct 1806.html

22 (last viewed August IS, 2007).)

23

17. Likewise, HMDA data for 200S shows that "for conventional home-

24 purchase loans, the gross mean incidence of higher-priced lending was S4.7 percent

25 for blacks and 17.2 percent for non-I Iispanic whites, a difference of37.S percentage 26 points.".lil at A 159. The situation is similar for refinancings, where there is a 27 ditTerence of 28.3 percentage points between blacks and non-Hispanic whites.

28 Avery, Brevoort, and Canner, Federal Reserve Bulletin, A 124, A 159.

4

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page6 of 23

] 8. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

2 (ACORN) released a report entitled "The High Cost of Credit: Disparities in High-

3 priced Refinanced Loans to Minority Homeowners in 125 American Cities," dated

4 September 27, 2005, which found that "[i]n every metropolitan area where at least

5 50 refinances were made to African-American homeowners, African-Americans

6 were more likely to receive a high-cost loan than White homeowners."

7

19. Defendant WACHOVIA's lending practices are of a piece with the

8 foregoing history.

9 11.
10

PAST AS PROLOGUE: DEFENDANT WACHOVIA'S DISCRIMINATORY LENDING POLICIES

I I

A. DEFENDANT WACHOVIA'S RELATIONSHIPS WITH ITS

12

MORTGAGE BROKERS AND CORRESPONDENT LENDERS

13

20. Defendant WACHOVIA originates and funds mortgage loans through

14 loan officers, brokers and through a network of correspondent lenders.

15

21. On information and beliet~ the loan officers, mortgage brokers and

16 correspondent lenders that work with Defendant WACHOVIA broker and fund

17 loans in collaboration with Defendant WACHOVIA, and in conformance with

18 Defendant \VACHOVIA's credit-pricing policies and procedures.

19

22. Defendant WACHOVIA has followed and continues to tollow

20 discretionary loan pricing procedures that cause minority borrowers to pay

21 subjective fees such as yield spread premiums and other mortgage-related finance

22 charges at higher rates than similarly situated non-minority borrowers. Defendant

23 WACHOVIA has intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff and Class Members

24 through these policies and procedures - systematically giving them mortgage loans

25 with less favorable conditions than were given to similarly situated non-minority

26 borrowers. This pattern of discrimination is not the result of random or non-

27 discriminatory factors. Rather, it is a direct result of Defendant WACHOVIA's

28 mortgage lending policies and procedures.

5

-
Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page7 of 23

23. On information and belief, Defendant WACHOVIA's authorized loan

2 officers, mortgage brokers and correspondent lenders receive part or all of their

3 compensation from Defendant WACHOVIA based on the interest rate charged to

4 the borrower. Defendant WACHOVIA's in-house loan officers, authorized brokers

5 and correspondent lenders receive more compensation from Defendant

6 WACIIOVIA when they steer their clients into WACI-IOVIA loans with higher

7 interest rates, and less compensation when they place their clients into

8 WACHOVIA loans with lower interest rates.

9

24. Defendant WACHOVIA intentionally and actively implements this

10 discriminatory credit-pricing policy in a number of ways, including actively

11 educating its loan officers and brokers about WACHOVIA's credit policies and

12 procedures, and directing its loan officers and brokers regarding the marketing of

13 \VACHOVIA loan products. WACHOVIA's "interactive, secure Web site,"

14 INSITE, provides forms, rate calculations, and other tools for its brokers to use in

15 marketing and arranging WACHOVIA loans to potential customers.

16 ~Y\V~.\V~lchovia.coll1/corp inst/page/O,,7 21~226 Z86~OO.htIl11 (last viewed August

17 20, 2007).

18

25. These credit-pricing policies and procedures permit Defendant

19 WACIIOVIA's authorized loan officers, mortgage brokers and correspondent

20 lenders subjectively to charge celiain loan applicants yield spread premiums and

21 other discretionary charges, including minority loan appl icants.

22

26. This pattern of discrimination cannot be justified by business

23 necessity, and could be avoided through the use of alternative policies and

24 procedures that have less discriminatory impact and no less business etTicacy.

25

B. DEFENDANT WACHOVIA'S DISCRETIONARY CREDIT

26

PRICING SYSTEM: DESIGNED TO DISCI~IMINATE

27

27. Defendant WACHOVIA discriminates through its authorized

28 mortgage brokers. Authorized mortgage brokers act as Defendant WACHOVIA's

6
CLASS

-
Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page8 of 23
"

agents in originating mortgage loans. Authorized mortgage brokers enter into

2 agreements with Defendant \VACI-{OVIA to accept loan applications on behalf of

3 Defendant WACHOVIA; communicate to loan applicants financing terms and rates

4 set by Defendant WACHOVIA; tell loan applicants about Defendant

5 \VACHOVIA's various financing options; and ultimately originate mortgage loans

6 funded by Defendant \VACHOVIA using Defendant WACHOVIA's forms and in

7 accordance with Defendant WACHOVIA 's policies and procedures.

8

28. Likewise with Defendant WACHOVIA's authorized cOITespondent

9 lenders and loan officers, who also act as Defendant WACHOVIA's agents in

I () originating loans. Correspondent mortgage lenders and loan officers that work with

11 Defendant WACHOVIA make loans in accordance with Defendant WACHOVIA's

12 credit policies and procedures. Defendant WACHOVIA funds correspondent-

13 generated loans before or shortly after they go to closing.

14

29. Defendant WACHOVIA, then, funds loans originated by its loan

15 officers, authorized mortgage brokers and correspondent lenders, sets the terms and

16 conditions of credit on those loans, and shoulders part or all of the risk on such

17 loans. Defendant WACHOVIA actively and intentionally enforces its credit

18 policies through its authorized loan officers, mortgage brokers and correspondent

19 lenders in a variety of ways. Among other things, Defendant \VACHOVIA

20 supplies its loan officers, correspondent lenders and mortgage brokers with an array

21 of loan-related forms and agreements, including loan contracts, loan applications,

22 and instructions on completing loan applications and contracts. And, as noted

23 above, WACIIOVIA actively trains its authorized brokers to follow WACHOVIA' s

24 pol icies and procedures, and reinforces that training with marketing support.

25

30. Once a loan applicant has provided credit information to Defendant

26 \VACIIOVIA through a loan officer, mortgage broker or correspondent lender,

Defendant \VACHOVIA performs an initial objective credit analysis. At that point,

28 Defendant WACHOVIA evaluates numerous risk-related credit variables, including

7

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page9 of 23

debt-to-income ratios, loan-to-value ratios, credit bureau histories, debt ratios,

2 bankruptcies, automobile repossessions, prior foreclosures, payment histories,

3 credit scores, and the like.

4

31. Defendant WACIIOVIA derives a risk-based financing rate from these

5 objective factors, which Defendant WACHOVIA and others in the mortgage

6 industry simply call the "par rate." (Defendant WACHOVIA's brokers and

7 correspondent lenders can also estimate the par rates by referring to an applicant's

8 credi t bureau-determined credit score.)

9

Although Detendant WACHOVIA's initial analysis applies objective

10 criteria to calculate this risk-related interest rate, Defendant WACHOVIA as a

I 1 matter of policy and procedure authorizes its loan officers, brokers and

12 correspondent l.enders to mark up that rate later, and also impose additional non-

13 risk-based charges including yield spread premiums, and other discretionary fees.

14 Defendant WACHOVIA regularly communicates applicable par rates, authorized

15 yield spread premiums, and other discretionary fees to its loan officers, brokers and

16 correspondent lenders via "rate sheets" and other communications.

17

33. Defendant WACHOVIA gives its loan officers, authorized mortgage

18 brokers and correspondent lenders discretion to impose yield spread premiums and

19 other subjective fees on borrowers. When borrowers pay yield spread premiums,

20 Defendant \VACHOVIA shares in additional income generated by the premium

21 because the yield spread premium-affected borrower is locked into a higher interest

22 rate going forward on their WACI-IOVIA loan than they would be if they had been

23 placed in a par rate loan without a yield spread premium.

24

34. Defendant \VACHOVIA's borrowers pay yield spread premiums and

other discretionary fees that inflate their finance charges not knowing that a portion 26 of their tinance charges are non-risk-related.

27

35. Defendant WACHOVIA's policies and procedures concerning the

28 . assessment of yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees cause persons

8
COMPL;\INT

-
Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page10 of 23

with identical or simi lar credit scores to pay differing amounts for obtaining credit.

2 Such subjective loan pricing - which by design imposes differing finance charges

3 on persons with the same or similar credit profiles - disparately impacts Defendant
. 4 WACIIOVIA's minoritv borrowers.

5

36. While Defendant WACHOVIA's use of a common credit policy for all

6 loan applicants might appear to be racially neutral, Defendant WACHOVIA's use

7 of yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees disproportionately and

8 adversely affects minorities (relative to similarly situated non-minorities).

9 Defendant WACHOVIA's credit policy causes minorities to pay disparately more

10 discretionary finance charges than similarly situated non-minorities. As the HMDA

11 data cited herein indicates, minorities are substantially more likely than similarly

12 situated non-minorities to pay such charges.

13

37. Defendant WACHOVIA's credit policy is in fact intentionally

14 discriminatory. As described above, Defendant WACHOVIA's credit pricing

15 policy by design discriminates against minority borrowers and directly causes this

16 disparate impact.

17 III. DEFENDANT WACHOVIA IMPOSED DISCRIMINATORY FEES ON

18

PLAINTIFFS

19

38. Defendant WACHOVIA's discriminatory credit pricing policy directly

20 damaged Plaintiffs.

21 Facts relating to Zamora:

22

39. In July, 2005, plaintiffs Javier and Leticia Zamora, husband and wife,

23 refinanced their home located at 1165 Orchid St., Livermore, CA. They engaged

24 the services of mortgage broker Carlos AI faro of Allfund Mortgage, who solicited 25 them at their home, to assist them with the transaction. World Savings Bank was 26 the lender on the Zamoras' original loan and also on the refinance.

27

40. The Zamoras purchased a 30-year, adjustable-rate mortgage loan in the

28 principal amount of $470,000 with an initial interest rate of 6.142% (an APR of

9 CLASS ACTION

-
Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page11 of 23

6.253%). In connection with this transaction, the Zamoras were required to pay

2 Universalllome Loans a "mortgage broker fee" of$5,450.00 paid out of the

3 proceeds of the loan, and a "broker fee" of$9,400.00 which was paid outside of

4 closing (PaC). The Zamoras also paid several hundred dollars in loan processing

5 fees to World Savings. On information and belief, the broker fees were assessed

6 pursuant to Defendant WACHOVIA's standard credit pricing policies.

7

41. The Zamoras are primarily Spanish-speaking, and WACHOVIA knew

8 that they were minority borrowers. Among other things, Mr. Alfaro had told them

9 that he was a Christian who was trying to help Latinos get better loans.

10 Facts relating to Perez:

11

42. In March-April 2007, plaintiffs Daniel and Elizabeth Perez, husband

12 and wife, refinanced their residence located at 11926 S. 38th Ave., Laween, Arizona

13 85339. Approximately $339,000 of the proceeds were used to pay off Perez's prior

14 mortgage with M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank, and $83,000 was used to satisfy other

15 debts. They engaged the services of a mortgage broker, Spectrum Financial, to

16 assist them with the transaction. World Savings Bank refinanced and funded the

17 loan.

18

43. Perez purchased a loan in the principal amount of $423,750. In

19 addition to hundreds of dollars in "redrawing" and processing fees paid to World

20 Savings, Perez was charged a $998.00 "mortgage broker fee" which was paid to

21 Spectrum Financial out oftlle proceeds of the loan, and a "broker fee" of$8,475.00

22 - 2% of the proceeds - which paid out of closing.

23

44. Mr. and Mrs. Perez also refinanced a second loan secured by their

24 property located at 3841 E. Calle Poco, Laween, AZ 85339. Ofthe $343,000

25 principal amount of this loan, approximately $175,000 was to pay off the Perez's

26 prior loan with National Bank of Arizona. In connection with this transaction,

27 Perez was required to pay a $3,430.00 "loan origination fee," a $498 "processing

28 fee," and a $75 "broker application fee" to Core Mortgage LLC. The HUO-I

10

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page12 of 23

Settlement Statement associated with the transaction states that the lender also paid

2 a $2,572.50 "yield spread" premium to Core Mortgage outside of the closing.

3

45. Mr. and Mrs. Perez are primarily Spanish-speaking, and WACHOVIA

4 knew that they were minority borrowers.

5

46. As a result of Defendant WAClIOVIA's discriminatory conduct,

6 Plaintiffs received loans on worse terms with higher costs than similarly situated

7 non-minority borrowers.

8

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

<)

47. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each allegation above as if set forth

10 hereininfull.

11

48. This class action is brought pursuant to ECOA, the FHA and the Civil

12 Rights Act by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all minority borrowers (the

13 "Class") who entered into residential mortgage loan contracts that were financed or

14 purchased by Defendant WACHOVIA, and who were harmed by Defendant's

IS discriminatory conduct.

16

49. Plaintiffs sue on their own behalf, and on behalf of a class of persons

17 under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and/or (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

18

50. Plainti fTs do not know the exact size of the Class or identities of the

19 members of the Class, since that information is in the exclusive control of

20 Defendant WACHOVIA. Plaintiffs believe that the Class includes many thousands,

21 or tens of thousands of individuals, who are geographically dispersed throughout

22 the United States. Therefore, the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

23 impracticable.

24

51. All members of the Class have been subjected to and affected by

25 Defendant WACHOVIA 's practice of assessing yield spread premiums and other

26 discretionary fees on mortgage loans. There are questions of law and fact that are

27 common to the Class, and that predominate over any questions affecting only

28

II

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page13 of 23

individual members of the Class. These questions include, but are not limited to the 2 following:

a. the nature and scope of Defendant WACHOVIA's policies and

4

procedures concerning the assessment of yield spread premiums and

5

other discretionary fees on mortgage loans it funds;

6

b. whether Defendant WACHOVIA discriminated against Class
7

Members by charging them higher interest, fees, and costs, than
8

9

Defendant \VACHOVIA charges similarly situated non-minority

10

bonowers;

II

c. whether Defendant WACHOVIA's intent in its discriminatory policies

12

and procedures was racially motivated;

13
d. wbether Defendant WACl10VIA can articulate any legitimate non-
14
discriminatory reason for its policies and procedures;
15

16

e. whether Defendant WACI-IOVIA and its subsidiaries are creditors

17

under the ECOA because, in the ordinary course of business, they

18

participate in the decision of whether or not to extend credit to

19

consumers;

20

f. wbether Defendant W ACHOVIA's policies and procedures regarding

21

yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees have a disparate

22

impact on minority borrowers;

24

g. whether Defendant WACHOVIA has any business justification for its

25

policies and procedures.

26

h. whether there is a less discriminatory alternative to these policies and

27

procedures;

28

12 PLAINT

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page14 of 23

I. whether Defendant WACHOVIA devised and deployed a scheme or

2

common course of conduct that acted to deceive Plaintiffs and

..,
J

members of the Class;

4
J. whcther the Court can enter declaratory and injunctive relief; and
5

6

k. the proper measure of disgorgement or monetary relief.

7

52. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the Class, and do not

8 conflict with the interests of any other members of the Class in that both Plaintiffs,

9 and the other members of the Class, were subjected to the same yield spread

10 premiums and other discretionary fees that have disproportionately affected

11 minoritv borrowers.
'"

1 2

53. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class.

13 Plaintiffs are committed to vigorous prosecution of the Class's claims, and have

14 retained attorneys who have extensive experience in consumer protection and credit

15 discrimination actions and in class actions.

16

54. Defendant WACHOVIA has acted or refused to act on grounds

17 generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief

18 or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.

J 9

55. A class action is superior to other methods for the speedy and efficient

20 adjudication of this controversy. A class action regarding the issues in this case

21 does not create any problems of manageability.

22

ACCRUAL, FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT, CONTINUING

VIOLATION, ANI) EQUITABLE TOLLING

24

56. Plaintiffs and Class Members did not know, and could not reasonably

25 have known, that they would receive from Defendant WACHOVIA mortgage loans

26 with worse terms and higher costs and fees than non-minorities. Their claims did

27 not accrue until shortly before the filing of this action.

28

13

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page15 of 23

57. Defendant WACIIOVIA's discriminatory conduct was inherently self.-

2 concealing. Defendant WACHOVIA knew that Plaintiffs and Class Members 3 could not determine the relationship between the terms, fees, and costs of their 4 loans to those available to non-minorities, or to the services that WACHOVIA and 5 its contracted mortgage brokers provided. Defendant WACHOVIA has superior 6 knowledge about the terms, fees, and costs of its loans, and knew that the terms,

7 fees and costs provided to minorities, unbeknownst to them, were substantially 8 worse than the loans provided to non-minorities.

9

58. Defendant WACHOVIA has not released or provided information

10 about its discrimination against Plaintiffs and Class Members, and has actively and 11 fraudulently concealed its discriminatory practices.

12

59. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and Class Members in the

13 exercise of due diligence could not have reasonably discovered the discriminatory

14 practices, and did not do so until just recently. For the reasons alleged above, the

15 members of the Class sti Il do not know that they have been and continue to be

16 injured by Defendant W ACHOVIA's discriminatory conduct.

17

60. Defendant WACHOVTA's discriminatory conduct is continuing in

18 nature, and Defendant WACHOVTA has committed discriminatory acts throughout

19 the limitations period. Class members whose loans include higher interest rates due

20 to WACHOVIA's discrimination continue to be harmed every time an interest

21 payment becomes due on such loans. Other Class members have contracted with

22 'vVACHOVIA, and been subject to the identical discriminatory practices, within the

23 appl icable period of limitations.

24

61. There is a substantial nexus between the acts of discrimination

25 occurring within the limitation periods prior to filing suit, and the acts of

26 discrimination before that time. The acts involve the same type of discrimination

27 and are recurring, not isolated events.

28

14

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page16 of 23

62. Defendant WACHOVIA specifically misled Plaintiffs and Class

2 Members into believing that the mortgage-related terms, fees, and costs they were

3 offered were fair, reasonable, and the same as offered to non-minorities, and took

4 steps to conceal its fraudulent and unfair conduct.

S

63. The statute of limitations applicable to any claims that Plaintiffs or

6 other Class Members have brought or could bring as a result of the unlawful and

7 fraudulent concealment and course of conduct described herein, have been tolled as

S a result of Defendant WACI-IOVIA's fraudulent concealment. In addition,

9 Plainti tTs and the Class did not and could not have discovered their causes of action

10 until the time alleged below, thereby tolling any applicable statute of limitations.

II

COUNT I

12

VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT

13

(15 U.S.C. §§ 1691 - 1691D

14

64. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs I

15 through 63 above as if fully set forth herein.

16

65. Defendant WACHOVIA engages in credit transactions through its

17 offering, granting, and purchasing of residential mortgage loans.

1 S

66. By imposing higher interest rates and other discretionary fees on

19 residential mortgage loans to Plaintiffs and Class Members than it imposed on non-

20 minority mortgage borrowers, Defendant \VACHOVIA has discriminated against

21 Plainti rrs and members of the Class with respect to a credit transaction on the basis

22 of race in violation of the ECOA. 15 U.S.C. § 1691 (a).

23

67. In addition, Defendant \VACIIOVIA's pricing policies and procedures

(including yield spread premiums), which provide financial incentives to its

mortgage brokers and correspondent lenders to make subjective decisions to

26 increase interest rates and charge additional fees and costs, have a disparate impact

on Plaintiffs and Class Members.

28

15

CLASS

COMPLAINT

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page17 of 23

68. As a proximate result of Defendant WACHOVIA 's violation of 15

2 U.S.C. § 1691, PlaintilTs and members of the Class have been injured and are

3 entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief and damages, or make whole equitable

4 relief.

5

69. In addition, Defendant WACHOVIA's conduct as alleged herein was

6 intentional, willful, wanton, reckless, malicious, outrageous, or otherwise

7 aggravated beyond mere negligence. Defendant WACHOVIA acted with malice

8 and reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiffs and members

9 of the Class. As a result, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to

10 punitive damages.

II

70. Moreover, Defendant WACHOVIA continues to discriminate in

12 violation of the ECOA against Class Members every time Defendant WACHOVIA

13 provides a home mortgage loan as described herein. If not enjoined from such

14 violation by the Court, Defendant WACHOVIA will continue to engage in conduct

15 that disregards the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Class, and cause

16 Plainti tTs and members of the Class irreparable injury for which there is no 17 adequate remedy at law. 15 U.S.C. § 169] (e).

18

71. Plaintiffs and members of the Class ask this Court to declare the rights

19 of the parties herein regarding Defendant WACHOVIA' s obligation to participate

20 in credit transactions without discriminating against applicants for credit on the 21 basis of the applicants' race.

22

COUNT II

23

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

24

(42 U.S.C. § 1981)

72. PlaintiiTs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate the allegations contained in

26 paragraphs 1 through 63 above as if fully set forth herein. 27 / I / 28 II /

16

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page18 of 23

73. Defendant WACHOVIA intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs

2 and Class Members by charging higher interest rates and other fees and costs than

3 were charged to similarly situated non-minority borrowers.

4

74. Defendant WACHOVIA unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiffs

5 and Class Members in (i) formation of contracts, (ii) making, performance,

6 moditication, and termination of contracts, (iii) the enjoyment of all benefits,

7 privilegcs, terms and conditions of the contractual relationship, and/or (iv) conduct

8 that interferes with the right to establish and enforce contract obligations.

9

75. Dcfcndant WACHOVIA's actions violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as

10 the rights of Plaintiffs and the Class under the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth

11 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

12

76. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to injunctive and declaratory

13 rclief and damages, or make whole equitable relief as a result of Defendant

14 WACHOVIA's discriminatory conduct.

15

77. At no time has Defendant WACIJOVIA undertaken correctivc action

16 to ameliorate its racially discriminatory practices. Dcfendant WACIIOVIA

17 continues to reap the profits of its discriminatory practices and continues to

18 discriminate. Defendant WACHOVIA 's conduct as alleged herein was intentional,

19 willful, wanton, reckless, malicious, outrageous, or otherwise aggravated beyond

20 merc negl igcncc. Defcndant WACI-IOVIA has actcd with malice and reckless

21 indifference to the fcderally protected rights ofPlaintifts and members of the Class.

22 As a result, Plainti ffs and members of the Class are entitled to punitive damages.

23

COUNT III

24

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

25

(42 U.S.C. § 1982)

26

78. Plainti ffs rcpcat, re-allege, and incorporate the allegations contained in

27 paragraphs 1 through 63 above as if fully set forth herein. 28 III

17

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page19 of 23

79. Section 42 U.S.C. §] 982 provides that all citizens of the United States

2 "shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by White

3 citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal

4 property."

5

80. Defendant WACHOVIA has diseriminated against PlaintitTs and the

6 Class with respect to their home mortgage loans by charging PlaintitTs and the

7 Class higher interest rates and other discretionary fees than Defendant

8 WACIIOVIA has charged similarly situated non-minority consumers. As a result 9 or Defendant WACHOVIA's conduct, Plaintiffs and the Class have not had the

10 same right as Caucasians to inherit, purchase, sell, hold, and convey real property.
11 Defendant WACHOVIA has thereby violated 42 U.S.C. § 1982.

12

81. Defendant WACHOVIA's violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982 was

13 intentional and mal icious.

14

82. As a proximate result of Defendant WACHOVIA's violation of 42

15 U.S.C. § 1982, Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been injured, and are

16 entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief and damages, or make whole equitable

17 relief.]n addition, Defendant WACHOVIA's conduct as alleged herein was

18 intentional, willful, wanton, reckless, malicious, outrageous, or otherwise

19 aggravated beyond mere negligence. Defendant WACHOVIA acted with malice

20 and reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiffs and members

21 of tile Class. As a result, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to

punitive damages.

23

COUNT IV

24

VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT

25

(42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 - 3619)

26

83. Plainti fTs repeat, re-allege and incorporate the allegations in paragraphs

1 through 63 above as if fully set forth herein.

28 / / /

18
--·········---~-·--------:-------··············-I

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page20 of 23

84. Mortgage lending and the providing of residential mortgage loans is a

! "residential real estate-related transaction" within the meaning of the FHA. 42

3 U.S.c. § 3605(b).

4

85. By imposing higher interest rates and other discretionary fees on

5 residential mortgage loans to Plaintiffs and Class Members than it imposed on non-

6 minority mortgage borrowers, Defendant WACHOVIA has discriminated against

7 Plaintiffs and members of the Class concerning their ability to participate in real

8 estate-related transactions, and in the terms and conditions of such transactions, in

9 violation oCthe FI-IA. 42 U.S.C. § 3605(a).

10

86. In addition, Defendant WACI-IOVIA's pricing policies and procedures

II (including yield spread premiums), which provide financial incentives to its

12 mortgage brokers and correspondent lenders to make subjective decisions to

13 increase interest rates and charge additional fees and costs, had a disparate impact

14 upon Plaintiffs and Class Members.

15

87. As a proximate result of Defendant WACHOVIA 's violation of 42

16 U.S.C. § 3605, Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been injured and are

17 entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief and damages, or make whole equitable

18 relief.

19

88. In addition, Defendant WACHOVIA 's conduct as alleged herein was

20 intentional, willful, wanton, reckless, malicious, outrageous, or otherwise

21 aggravated beyond mere negligence. Defendant WACHOVIA acted with malice

22 and reckless indi fference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiffs and members

23 of the Class. As a result, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to

24 punitive damages.

25

89. Moreover, Defendant WACHOVIA continues to discriminate in

26 violation of the FHA against members of the Class every time Defendant

27 WACHOVIA provides a home mortgage loan as described herein. Ifnot enjoined

28 from such violation by the Court, Defendant WACHOVIA will continue to engage

19 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page21 of 23

in conduct that disregards the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Class, and

2 cause Plaintiffs and members of the Class irreparable injury for which there is no 3 adequate remedy at law. 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c).

4

90. Plaintiffs and members of the Class ask this Court to declare the rights

5 of the parties herein regarding Defendant WACHOVJA's obligation to participate

6 in credit transadions without discriminating against applicants for credit on the

7 basis of the applicants' race.

8

COUNT IV

9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

10

WIIEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs request the following

11 relief:

12

A. An order determining that the action is a proper class action pursuant

13 to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

14

B. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs and Class Members costs and

15 disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable

16 attol11eys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs;

17

C. A judgment granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as

18 permitted by law or equity, including rescission, restitution, reformation, attaching,

19 impounding, or imposing a constructive trust upon, or otherwise restricting, the

20 proceeds of Defendant's ill-gotten funds to ensure that Plaintiffs and Class

21 Members have an effective remedy;

22

D. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs and Class Members compensatory

23 damages according to proof;

24

E. A judgment awarding punitive damages to Plaintiffs and Class

25 Members;

26

F. A judgment granting declaratory and injunctive relief and all rei ief that

27 flows from such injunctive and declaratory relief; and

28

20
.... -----..- ... - - -..... - . - - ·-----····---··------l;-y.l-\S-·S-j\-C-nej-N-CC-)rv-1PLAINT

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page22 of 23

G. A judgment or other order granting such other and further relief as the

') Court deems just and proper including, but not limited to, recessionary relief and

3 reformation.

4

DATED thi ~ day of September, 2007.

5 Respectfully submitted,
6
CHAVEZ & GERTLER, L.L.P.
7

8

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN

& BALINT, P.C.

9

10

LERACH, COUGHLIN, STOIA, GELLER

RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP

I 1

12

HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS

ADVOCATES

13

14

fY1//\.UMld ~

15

By: Nance fi?'Becker

16
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
17

18

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

19

Plainti Ffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

20

DATED this S~day of September, 2007.

21 Dated: September 5, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

CHAVEZ & GERTLER, L.L.P.

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.

26

LERACH, COUGHLIN, STOIA, GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP

27
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS
28

21 COMI'L/\INT

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document1 Filed09/05/07 Page23 of 23

ADVOCATES

2

3

4

5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6 Additional Counsel:

7 BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.

Andrew S. Friedman (to seck pro hac vice admission)

Wendy lilarrison (CA 151090) 9 290 I North Central Avenue, Suite 1000

10 Phoenix. Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 274-1100

I 1

LERACIl COUGHLIN, STOIA, GELLER 12 RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP

13

John Stoia (CA SBN 141757) Ted Pintar (CA SBN131372)

14 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900

San Diego, CA 92101 15 Telephone: (619) 231-1058

16 Maeve Elise Brown (CA SBN 137512) 17 I lOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS ADVOCATES
P.O. Box 29435. Oakland. CA 94604 18 1305 Franklin St., Stc. 305, Oakland CA 94612
Telephone: 510-271-8443 19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CLASS

 
 Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page1 of 24

1 . CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP

MARK A. CHAVEZ (Bar No. 90858)

2 JONATHAN E. GERtLER (BarNo. 111531)

NANCE F. BECKER (Bar No. 99292)

j. 3 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, California 94941 4 . Teleph<;me: 15) 381-5599

FacsImIle: 415) 381-5572

5Emai1:~arkchavezgertler.com

on c avez ertler.com

6 .

nance c avez ert er.com

7 Additional Counsel listed on signature page.

8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

11

SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND DIVISION

12 LETICIA ZAMORA and DANIEL PEREZ and ELIZABETH PEREZ,
13
Plaintiffs,
14
15 v. 16
WACHOVIA CORPORATION and 17 WORLD SAVINGS BANK,
18
Defendants.
19 20 21 22

No.3:07-CV-4603
CLASS ACTION
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 1.Violations of the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act; 2. Violations of the Fair Housing Act; 3. Violations of the Civil Rights Act,
42 U.S.C. §1981; and 4. Violations of the Civil Rights Act,
42 U.S.C. §1982

23 ---------------------------/ DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
24

25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CV-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page2 of 24

1. Plaintiffs LETICIA ZAMORA ("Zamora"), DANIEL PEREZ and

2 ELIZABETH PEREZ ("Perez") (together, "Plaintiffs"), by and through their

3 attorneys, bring this action against Wachovia Corporation and its wholly-owned

4 subsidiary, World Savings Bank (together, "WACHOVIA" or "Defendant")

5 seeking redress for racially discriminatory lending practices under the Equal Credit

6 Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq. ("ECOA"), the Fair Housing Act, 42

7 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq ("FHA"), and the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and

8 1982, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.

9

INTRODUCTION

10

2. This class action challenges Defendant WACHOVIA's racially

11 discriminatory mortgage lending practices. Defendant WACHOVIA has, directly

12 and through the operations of its subsidiary World Savings Bank, engaged in both

13 intentional and disparate impact discrimination through its development and

14 implementation of mortgage pricing policies and procedures that provide financial

15 incentives to its authorized loan officers, mortgage brokers and correspondent

16 lenders to make subjective decisions to increase interest rates and charge additional

17 fees and costs to minority borrowers.

18

3. Defendant WACHOVIA's authorized loan officers, mortgage brokers

19 and correspondent lenders are given discretion - and actually encouraged and

20 incentivized - to increase interest rates and charge additional fees to certain

21 borrowers. These policies directly lead to minorities receiving home loans with

22 higher interest rates and higher fees and costs than similarly situated non-minority

23 borrowers.

24

4. As used in this Complaint, "minority" or "minorities" shall refer to all

25 non-Caucasians and other minority racial groups protected under 42 U.S.C. §§

26 1981, 1982, and 3604, and 15 U.S.C. § 1691.

27

5. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all minorities (hereinafter

28 collectively referred to as the "Class" or "members of the Class") who have entered

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CV-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page3 of 24

into residential mortgage loan contracts that were financed or purchased by

2 WACHOVIA, and who have been subjected to racial discrimination.

3

6. Plaintiffs seek injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief, punitive

4 damages, and other monetary and non-monetary remedies for WACHOVIA's

5 racially discriminatory conduct.

6

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7

7. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives

8 this Court original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law.

9

8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. l391(b) because a

10 substantial part (lfthe events giving rise to Plaintiffs' and the Class's claims

11 occurred in this District. In particular, Zamora resides in this District and World

12 Savings Bank financed Zamora's purchase of property located in this District out of

13 its offices located in this District.

14

PARTIES

15

9. Plaintiff Zamora is a Latino homeowner who resides at 1165 Orchid

16 Street, Livermore, CA 94551.

17

10. Plaintiffs Perez are Latino homeowners who reside in Laween,

18 Arizona.

19

11. Defendant Wachovia Corporation is a diversified financial services

20 company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Wachovia Corporation and

21 its subsidiaries conduct business and maintain branches throughout the United

22 States, including in this judicial district and elsewhere in California.

23

12. Wachovia Corporation merged with Golden West Financial Services in

24 2006. World Savings Bank, a federal savings bank which entered into the relevant

25 lending transactions with the plaintiffs, was at the time of the merger a subsidiary of

26 Golden West with offices throughout the United States including California.

27 Following the merger, World Savings became a subsidiary ofWachovia

28 Corporation. Defendants have informed consumers that they are in the process of

2

. - - - -...- - - - . - - - . - - - - . - - - - ..-.

·····,-,----,--------1

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CY-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page4 of 24

wholly integrating their banking services, and that no changes will result to the

2 terms or conditions of any outstanding loans. See, e.g.,

3 http://wachovia.comlinside/page/O.. 131 10466 10469,00.html#numbers (last

4 visited August 310, 2007). On information and belief, as a result of the merger

5 Wachovia Corporation assumed all rights, obligations and liabilities arising our of

6 and related to loans made by World Savings Bank, including the loans made to the

7 Plaintiffs herein.

8

FACTS

9 I. 10 11

HISTORI[CAL DISCRIMINATION IN AMERICAN MORTGAGE LENDING
13. Racial discrimination in America's mortgage lending industry has a

12 long legacy. As this Complaint attests, that unfortunate history continues to this

13 day due to discriminatory treatment of minority borrowers by mortgage banks such

14 as WACHOVIA.

15

14. The Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University conducted

16 a study in 2005 called "The Dual Mortgage Market: The Persistence of

17 Discrimination in Mortgage Lending," which summarizes that history well. It

18 states that "[i]n the immediate post-World War II period, racial discrimination in

19 mortgage lending was easy to spot. From government-sponsored racial covenants in

20 the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) guidelines to the redlining practices of

21 private mortgage lenders and financial institutions, minorities were denied access to

22 home mortgages in ways that severely limited their ability to purchase a home.

23 Today, mortgage lending discrimination is more subtle.. ,. [M]ore than three

24 decades after the enactment of national fair lending legislation, minority consumers

25 continue to have less-than-equal access to loans at the best prices and on the best

26 terms that their credit history, income, and other individual financial considerations

27 meriC'

28

-------------

3 - - - - - - - ----,.--,---,---,-----------------------------------
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CV-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page5 of 24

15. The federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act ("HMDA") requires

2 mortgage lenders to report information about the home loans they process each 3 year. In ~005, lenders reported information on more than 30 million home loan

4 applications pursuant to HMDA. In 1989, Congress required lenders to begin

5 disclosing information about mortgage borrowers' race and ethnicity. In 2004,

6 concerned with potential racial discrimination in loan pricing, and recognizing that

7 racial or other types of discrimination can occur when loan officers and mortgage 8 brokers have latitude in setting interest rates, the Federal Reserve Board began

9 requiring lenders to also report information concerning rates, points, and fees,

10 charged to borrowers on high-cost loans.

11

16. HMDA data for 2004 reveals profound loan pricing disparities

12 between Hispanic borrowers and non-Hispanic whites even after controlling for

13 borrowers' gendler, income, property location, and loan amount. After accounting

14 for those differences in the 2004 HMDA data, Hispanic borrowers were still almost

15 twice as likely to receive a higher-rate home loan as non-Hispanic whites.

16 (http://www.responsiblelending.org/pdfs/Testimony-Ernst0613 06.pdf (last viewed

17 August 14,2007).) In a speech last year, the Vice-Chairman of the Federal Deposit 18 Insurance Corporation, Martin Gruenberg, discussed the 2004 HMDA data and

19 observed that that data "clearly indicated" that Hispanics are more likely to receive

20 high-cost home loans than are non-Hispanic whites.

21 (http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/archives/2006/chairman/spoctI806.html

22 (last viewed August 15,2007).)

23

17. Likewise, HMDA data for 2005 shows that "for conventional home-

24 purchase loans, the gross mean incidence of higher-priced lending was 54.7 percent

25 for blacks and 17.2 percent for non-Hispanic whites, a difference of37.5 percentage

26 points." Id. at A159. The situation is similar for refinancings, where there is a

27 difference of28.3 percentage points between blacks and non-Hispanic whites. 28 Avery, Brevoort~, and Canner, Federal Reserve Bulletin, A124, A159.

4 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CY-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page6 of 24

18. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

2 (ACORN) released a report entitled "The High Cost of Credit: Disparities in High-

3 priced Refinanced Loans to Minority Homeowners in 125 American Cities," dated

4 September 27, 2005, which found that "[i]n every metropolitan area where at least

5 50 refinances were made to African-American homeowners, African-Americans

6 were more likely to receive a high-cost loan than White homeowners."

7

19. Defendant WACHOVIA's lending practices are ofa piece with the

8 foregoing history.

9 II.
10

PAST AS PROLOGUE: DEFENDANT WACHOVIA'S DISCRIlVlINATORY LENDING POLICIES

11

A. DEFENDANT WACHOVIA'S RELATIONSHIPS WITH ITS

12

MORTGAGE BROKERS AND CORRESPONDENT LENDERS

13

20. Defendant WACHOVIA originates and funds mortgage loans through

14 loan officers, brokers and through a network of correspondent lenders.

15

21. On information and belief, the loan officers, mortgage brokers and

16 correspondent lenders that work with Defendant WACHOVIA broker and fund

17 loans in collaboration with Defendant WACHOVIA, and in conformance with

18 Defendant WACHOVIA' s credit-pricing policies and procedures.

19

22. Defendant WACHOVIA has followed - and continues to follow-

20 discretionary loan pricing procedures that cause minority borrowers to pay

21 subjective fees such as yield spread premiums and other mortgage-related finance

22 charges at higher rates than similarly situated non-minority borrowers. Defendant

23 WACHOVIA has intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff and Class Members

24 through these policies and procedures - systematically giving them mortgage loans

25 with less favorable conditions than were given to similarly situated non-minority

26 borrowers. This pattern of discrimination is not the result of random or non-

27 discriminatory factors. Rather, it is a direct result of Defendant WACHOVIA's

28 mortgage lending policies and procedures.

5

_-----_ __._-_. ..

...._---_._---_..

------:-~--.----

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CV-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page7 of 24

23. On information and belief, Defendant WACI-IOVIA's authorized loan 2 officers, mortgage brokers and correspondent lenders receive part or all of their 3 compensation from Defendant WACHOVIA based on the interest rate charged to

4 the borrower. Defendant WACHOVIA's in-house loan officers, authorized brokers

5 and correspondent lenders receive more compensation from Defendant 6 WACHOVIA when they steer their clients into WACHOVIA loans with higher

7 interest rates, and less compensation when they place their clients into 8 WACHOVIA loans with lower interest rates.

9

24. Defendant WACHOVIA intentionally and actively implements this

10 discriminatory credit-pricing policy in a number of ways, including actively

11 educating its loan officers and brokers about WACHOVIA' s credit policies and

12 procedures, and directing its loan officers and brokers regarding the marketing of 13 WACHOVIA loan products. WACHOVIA's "interactive, secure Web site," 14 INSITE, provides forms, rate calculations, and other tools for its brokers to use in 15 marketing and atTanging WACHOVIA loans to potential customers.

16 www.wachovia.com/corp inst/page/O,,7 21 226 786,00.html (last viewed August

17 20, 2007).

18

25. These credit-pricing policies and procedures permit Defendant

19 WACHOVIA's authorized loan officers, mortgage brokers and correspondent

20 lenders subjectively to charge certain loan applicants yield spread premiums and

21 other discretionary charges, including minority loan applicants.

22

26. This pattern of discrimination cannot be justified by business

23 necessity, and could be avoided through the use of alternative policies and

24 procedures that have less discriminatory impact and no less business efficacy. 25 / / /

26 / / /

27 / / /

28 / / /

6 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CY-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page8 of 24

B. DEFENDANT WACHOVIA'S DISCRETIONARY CREDIT

2

PRICING SYSTEM: DESIGNED TO DISCRIMINATE

3

27. Defendant WACHOVIA discriminates through its authorized

4 mortgage brokers. Authorized mortgage brokers act as Defendant WACHOVIA's

5 agents in originating mortgage loans. Authorized mortgage brokers enter into

6 agreements with Defendant WACHOVIA to accept loan applications on behalf of

7 Defendant WACHOVIA; communicate to loan applicants financing terms and rates

8 set by Defendant WACHOVIA; tell loan applicants about Defendant

9 WACHOVIA' s various financing options; and ultimately originate mortgage loans

10 funded by Defendant WACHOVIA using Defendant WACHOVIA's forms and in

11 accordance with Defendant WACHOVIA's policies and procedures.

12

28. Likewise with Defendant WACHOVIA's authorized correspondent

13 lenders and loan officers, who also act as Defendant WACHOVIA's agents in

14 originating loans. Correspondent mortgage lenders and loan officers that work with

15 Defendant WACHOVIA make loans in accordance with Defendant WACHOVIA's

16 credit policies and procedures. Defendant WACHOVIA funds correspondent-

17 generated loans before or shortly after they go to closing.

18

29. Defendant WACHOVIA, then, funds loans originated by its loan

19 officers, authorized mortgage brokers and correspondent lenders, sets the terms and

20 conditions of credit on those loans, and shoulders part or all of the risk on such

21 loans. Defendant WACHOVIA actively and intentionally enforces its credit

22 policies through its authorized loan officers, mortgage brokers and correspondent

23 lenders in a variety of ways. Among other things, Defendant WACHOVIA

24 supplies its loan officers, correspondent lenders and mortgage brokers with an array

25 of loan-related forms and agreements, including loan contracts, loan applications,

26 and instructions on completing loan applications and contracts. And, as noted

27 above, WACHOVIA actively trains its authorized brokers to follow WACHOVIA's

28 policies and procedures, and reinforces that training with marketing support.

7 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CY-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page9 of 24

30. Once a loan applicant has provided credit information to Defendant

2 WACHOVIA through a loan oiTicer, mortgage broker or correspondent lender,

3 Defendant WACHOVIA performs an initial objective credit analysis. At that point,

4 Defendant WACHOVIA evaluates numerous risk-related credit variables, including

5 debt-to-income ratios, loan-to-value ratios, credit bureau histories, debt ratios,

6 bankruptcies, automobile repossessions, prior foreclosures, payment histories,

7 credit scores, and the like.

8

31. Defendant WACHOVIA derives a risk-based financing rate from these

9 objective factors, which Defendant WACHOVIA and others in the mortgage

10 industry simply call the "par rate." (Defendant WACHOVIA' s brokers and

11 correspondent lenders can also estimate the par rates by referring to an applicant's

12 credit bureau-determined credit score.)

13

32. Although Defendant WACHOVIA's initial analysis applies objective

14 criteria to calculate this risk-related interest rate, Defendant WACHOVIA as a

15 matter of policy and procedure authorizes its loan officers, brokers and

16 correspondent lenders to mark up that rate later, and also impose additional non-

17 risk-based charges including yield spread premiums, and other discretionary fees.

18 Defendant WACHOVIA regularly communicates applicable par rates, authorized

19 yield spread premiums, and other discretionary fees to its loan officers, brokers and

20 correspondent lenders via "rate sheets" and other communications.

21

33. Defi~ndant WACIIOVIA gives its loan officers, authorized mortgage

22 brokers and correspondent lenders discretion to impose yield spread premiums and

23 other subjective fees on borrowers. When borrowers pay yield spread premiums,

24 Defendant WACHOVIA shares in additional income generated by the premium

25 because the yield spread premium-affected borrower is locked into a higher interest

26 rate going forward on their WACHOVIA loan than they would be if they had been

27 placed in a par rate loan without a yield spread premium.

28

8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~~~ ----

-=---:-:::-::-::-:-::~-::-=--=-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No, No, 3:07-CY-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page10 of 24

34. Defendant WACHOVIA's bonowers pay yield spread premiums and

2 other discretionary fees that inflate their finance charges not knowing that a portion

3 of their finance charges are non-risk-related.

4

35. Defendant WACHOVIA's policies and procedures concerning the

5 assessment of yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees cause persons

6 with identical or similar credit scores to pay differing amounts for obtaining credit.

7 Such subjective loan pricing - which by design imposes differing finance charges

8 on persons with the same or similar credit profiles - disparately impacts Defendant

9 WACHOVIA' s minority borrowers.

10

36. While Defendant WACHOVIA's use ofa common credit policy for all

11 loan applicants might appear to be racially neutral, Defendant WACHOVIA' s use

12 of yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees disproportionately and

13 adversely affects minorities (relative to similarly situated non-minorities).

14 Defendant WACHOVIA's credit policy causes minorities to pay disparately more

15 discretionary finance charges than similarly situated non-minorities. As the HMDA

16 data cited herein indicates, minorities are substantially more likely than similarly

17 situated non-minorities to pay such charges.

18

37. Detlendant WACHOVIA's credit policy is in fact intentionally

19 discriminatory. As described above, Defendant WACHOVIA's credit pricing

20 policy by design discriminates against minority bonowers and directly causes this

21 disparate impact.

22 III. DEFENDANT WACHOVIA IMPOSED DISCRIMINATORY FEES ON

23

PLAINTIFFS

24

38. Deflendant WACHOVIA's discriminatory credit pricing policy directly

25 damaged Plaintiffs.

26 Facts relating to Zamora:

27

39. In July, 2005, plaintiff Leticia Zamora refinanced her home located at

28 1165 Orchid St., Livermore, CA. She engaged the services of mortgage broker

9 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CV-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page11 of 24

Carlos Alfaro of Allfund Mortgage, who solicited her and her husband, Javier

2 Zamora, at their home, to assist them with the transaction. World Savings Bank

3 was the lender on the Zamoras' original loan and also on the refinance.

4

40. Zamora purchased a 30-year, adjustable-rate mortgage loan in the

5 principal amount of $470,000 with an initial interest rate of 6.142% (an APR of

6 6.253%). In connection with this transaction, Zamora was required to pay

7 Universal Home Loans a "mortgage broker fee" of$5,450.00 paid out of the

8 proceeds of the loan, and a "broker fee" of $9,400.00 which was paid outside of

9 closing (PaC). Zamora also paid several hundred dollars in loan processing fees to

10 World Savings. On information and belief, the broker fees were assessed pursuant

11 to Defendant WACHOVIA's standard credit pricing policies.

12

41. The Zamoras are primarily Spanish-speaking, and WACHOVIA knew

l3 that they were minority borrowers. Among other things, Mr. Alfaro had told them

14 that he was a Christian who was trying to help Latinos get better loans.

15 Facts relating to Perez:

16

42. In l\tlarch-April 2007, plaintiffs Daniel and Elizabeth Perez, husband

17 and wife, refinanced their residence located at 11926 S. 38th Ave., Laween, Arizona

18 85339. Approximately $339,000 of the proceeds were used to payoff Perez's prior

19 mortgage with lVl&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank, and $83,000 was used to satisfy other

20 debts. They engaged the services of a mortgage broker, Spectrum Financial, to

21 assist them with the transaction. World Savings Bank refinanced and funded the

22 loan.

23

43. Perez purchased a loan in the principal amount of $423,750. In

24 addition to hundreds of dollars in "redrawing" and processing fees paid to World

25 Savings, Perez was charged a $998.00 "mortgage broker fee" which was paid to

26 Spectrum Financial out of the proceeds of the loan, and a "broker fee" of$8,475.00

27 - 2% of the proceeds - which paid out of closing.

28

_ - - _ 10

..

......_ - - - - -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No, No, 3:07-CY-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page12 of 24

44. Mr. and Mrs. Perez also refinanced a second loan secured by their

2 property located at 3841 E. Calle Poco, Laween, AZ 85339. Of the $343,000

3 principal amount of this loan, approximately $175,000 was to pay off the Perez's

4 prior loan with National Bank of Arizona. In connection with this transaction,

5 Perez was required to pay a $3,430.00 "loan origination fee," a $498 "processing

6 fee," and a $75 "broker application fee" to Core Mortgage LLC. The HUD-l

7 Settlement Statement associated with the transaction states that the lender also paid

8 a $2,572.50 "yielld spread" premium to Core Mortgage outside of the closing.

9

45. Mr. and Mrs. Perez are primarily Spanish-speaking, and WACHOVIA

10 knew that they were minority borrowers.

11

46. As a result of Defendant WACHOVIA's discriminatory conduct,

12 Plaintiffs received loans on worse terms with higher costs than similarly situated

13 non-minority bOITowers.

14

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

15

47. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each allegation above as if set forth

16 herein in full.

17

48. This class action is brought pursuant to ECOA, the FHA and the Civil

18 Rights Act by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all minority borrowers (the

19 "Class") who entered into residential mortgage loan contracts that were financed or

20 purchased by Defendant WACHOVIA, and who were harmed by Defendant's

21 discriminatory conduct.

22

49. Plaintiffs sue on their own behalf, and on behalf of a class of persons

23 under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and/or (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

24

50. Plaintiffs do not know the exact size of the Class or identities of the

25 members of the Class, since that information is in the exclusive control of

26 Defendant WACHOVIA. Plaintiffs believe that the Class includes many thousands,

27 or tens of thousands of individuals, who are geographically dispersed throughout

28 the United States. Therefore, the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members

11 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CY-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page13 of 24

is impracticable.

2

51. All members of the Class have been subjected to and affected by

3 Defendant WACHOVIA's practice of assessing yield spread premiums and other

4 discretionary fees on mortgage loans. There are questions of law and fact that are

5 common to the Class, and that predominate over any questions affecting only

6 individual members of the Class. These questions include, but are not limited to the

7 following:

8

a. the nature and scope of Defendant WACHOVIA's policies and

9

procedures concerning the assessment of yield spread premiums and

10

other discretionary fees on mortgage loans it funds;

11

b. whether Defendant WACHOVIA discriminated against Class

12

Members by charging them higher interest, fees, and costs, than

13

Defendant WACHOVIA charges similarly situated non-minority

14

bon·owers;

15

c. whether Defendant WACHOVIA's intent in its discriminatory policies

16

and procedures was racially motivated;

17

d. whether Defendant WACHOVIA can articulate any legitimate non-

18

discriminatory reason for its policies and procedures;

19

c. whether Defendant WACHOVIA and its subsidiaries are creditors

20

under the ECOA because, in the ordinary course of business, they

21

participate in the decision of whether or not to extend credit to

22

consumers;

23

f. whether Defendant WACHOVIA's policies and procedures regarding

24

yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees have a disparate

25

impact on minority borrowers;

26

g. whether Defendant WACHOVIA has any business justification for its

27

policies and procedures.

28

12

. - - -..- - - - - - - . - - - - - , - -

.._- -- ..... -- ... --~c::--,._:_:_

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CV-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page14 of 24

h. whether there is a less discriminatory alternative to these policies and

2

procedures;

3

1. whether Defendant WACHOVIA devised and deployed a scheme or

4

common course of conduct that acted to deceive Plaintiffs and

5

members of the Class;

6

J. whether the Court can enter declaratory and injunctive relief; and

7

k. the proper measure of disgorgement or monetary relief.

8

52. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the Class, and do not

9 conflict with the interests of any other members of the Class in that both Plaintiffs,

10 and the other members of the Class, were subjected to the same yield spread

11 premiums and other discretionary fees that have disproportionately affected

12 minority borrowers.

13

53. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class.

14 Plaintiffs are committed to vigorous prosecution of the Class's claims, and have

15 retained attorneys who have extensive experience in consumer protection and credit

16 discrimination actions and in class actions.

17

54. De£endant WACHOVIA has acted or refused to act on grounds

18 generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief

19 or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.

20

55. A class action is superior to other methods for the speedy and efficient

21 adjudication of this controversy. A class action regarding the issues in this case

22 does not create any problems of manageability.

23

ACCRUAL, FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT, CONTINUING

24

VIOLATION, AND EQUITABLE TOLLING

25

56. Plaintiffs and Class Members did not know, and could not reasonably

26 have known, that they would receive from Defendant WACHOVIA mortgage loans

27 with worse terms and higher costs and fees than non-minorities. Their claims did

28 not accrue until shortly before the filing of this action.

13 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CV-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page15 of 24

57. DeD~ndant WACHOVIA's discriminatory conduct was inherently self-

2 concealing. Defendant WACHOVIA knew that Plaintiffs and Class Members

3 could not determine the relationship between the terms, fees, and costs of their

4 loans to those available to non-minorities, or to the services that WACHOVIA and

5 its contracted mortgage brokers provided. Defendant WACHOVIA has superior

6 knowledge about: the terms, fees, and costs of its loans, and knew that the terms,

7 fees and costs provided to minorities, unbeknownst to them, were substantially

8 worse than the loans provided to non-minorities.

9

58. DeD~ndant WACHOVIA has not released or provided information

10 about its discrimination against Plaintiffs and Class Members, and has actively and

11 fraudulently concealed its discriminatory practices.

12

59. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and Class Members in the

13 exercise of due diligence could not have reasonably discovered the discriminatory

14 practices, and did not do so until just recently. For the reasons alleged above, the

15 members of the Class still do not know that they have been and continue to be

16 injured by Defendant WACHOVIA's discriminatory conduct.

17

60. DeD~ndant WACHOVIA's discriminatory conduct is continuing in

18 nature, and Defendant WACHOVIA has committed discriminatory acts throughout

19 the limitations period. Class members whose loans include higher interest rates due

20 to WACHOVIA~s discrimination continue to be harmed every time an interest

21 payment becomes due on such loans. Other Class members have contracted with

22 WACHOVIA, and been subject to the identical discriminatory practices, within the

23 applicable period oflimitations.

24

61. There is a substantial nexus between the acts of discrimination

25 occurring within the limitation periods prior to filing suit, and the acts of

26 discrimination before that time. The acts involve the same type of discrimination

27 and are recurring, not isolated events.

28

14 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CV-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page16 of 24

62. Detendant WACHOVIA specifically misled Plaintiffs and Class

2 Members into believing that the mortgage-related terms, fees, and costs they were

3 otTered were fair, reasonable, and the same as offered to non-minorities, and took

4 steps to conceal its fraudulent and unfair conduct.

5

63. The statute of limitations applicable to any claims that Plaintiffs or

6 other Class Members have brought or could bring as a result of the unlawful and

7 fraudulent concealment and course of conduct described herein, have been tolled as

8 a result of Defendant WACHOVIA' s fraudulent concealment. In addition,

9 Plaintiffs and the Class did not and could not have discovered their causes of action

10 until the time alleged below, thereby tolling any applicable statute oflimitations.

11

COUNT I

12

VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT

13

(15 U.S.C. §§ 1691 - 16910

14

64. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

15 through 63 above as if fully set forth herein.

16

65. Detendant WACHOVIA engages in credit transactions through its

17 offering, granting, and purchasing of residential mortgage loans.

18

66. By i.mposing higher interest rates and other discretionary fees on

19 residential mortgage loans to Plaintiffs and Class Members than it imposed on non-

20 minority mortgage borrowers, Defendant WACHOVIA has discriminated against

21 Plaintiffs and members of the Class with respect to a credit transaction on the basis

22 of race in violation of the ECOA. 15 U.S.C. § 1691 (a).

23

67. In addition, Defendant WACHOVIA's pricing policies and procedures

24 (including yield spread premiums), which provide financial incentives to its

25 mortgage brokers and correspondent lenders to make subjective decisions to

26 increase interest rates and charge additional fees and costs, have a disparate impact

27 on Plaintiffs and Class Members.

28

15
==--c-:c--:-:::-c==::-::::---:-::-::~=-=-=:-:-. --...--.--........---.--.-... - - - - - 1
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CY-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page17 of 24

68. As a proximate result of Defendant WACHOVIA's violation of 15

2 U.S.C. § 1691, Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been injured and are

3 entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief and damages, or make whole equitable

4 relief.

5

69. In addition, Defendant WACHOVIA' s conduct as alleged herein was

6 intentional, willful, wanton, reckless, malicious, outrageous, or otherwise

7 aggravated beyond mere negligence. Defendant WACHOVIA acted with malice

8 and reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiffs and members

9 of the Class. As a result, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to

10 punitive damages.

11

70. Moreover, Defendant WACHOVIA continues to discriminate in

12 violation of the ECOA against Class Members every time Defendant WACHOVIA

13 provides a home mortgage loan as described herein. Ifnot enjoined from such

14 violation by the Court, Defendant WACHOVIA will continue to engage in conduct

15 that disregards the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Class, and cause

16 Plaintiffs and members of the Class irreparable injury for which there is no

17 adequate remedy at law. 15 U.S.C. § 1691(e).

18

71. Plaintiffs and members of the Class ask this Court to declare the rights

19 of the parties herein regarding Defendant WACHOVIA's obligation to participate

20 in credit transactions without discriminating against applicants for credit on the 21 basis of the applicants' race.

22

COUNT II

23

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

24

(42 U.S.C. § 1981)

25

72. Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate the allegations contained in

26 paragraphs 1 through 63 above as if fully set forth herein.

27

73. De~endant WACHOVIA intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs

28 and Class Members by charging higher interest rates and other fees and costs than

_ - - - - - - - - _...

........ _

.

_

.

_

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

16 --_

.

__ .. _-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CV-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page18 of 24

1 were charged to similarly situated non-minority borrowers.

2

74. Defendant WACHOVIA unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiffs

3 and Class Members in (i) formation of contracts, (ii) making, performance,

4 modification, and termination of contracts, (iii) the enjoyment of all benefits,

5 privileges, terms and conditions of the contractual relationship, and/or (iv) conduct

6 that interferes with the right to establish and enforce contract obligations.

7

75. Defendant WACHOVIA's actions violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as

8 the rights of Plaintiffs and the Class under the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth

9 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

10

76. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to injunctive and declaratory

11 relief and damages, or make whole equitable relief as a result of Defendant

12 WACHOVIA's discriminatory conduct.

13

77. At no time has Defendant WACHOVIA undertaken corrective action

14 to ameliorate its racially discriminatory practices. Defendant WACHOVIA

15 continues to reap the profits of its discriminatory practices and continues to

16 discriminate. Defendant WACHOVIA' s conduct as alleged herein was intentional,

17 willful, wanton, reckless, malicious, outrageous, or otherwise aggravated beyond

18 mere negligence. Defendant WACHOVIA has acted with malice and reckless

19 indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Class.

20 As a result, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to punitive damages.

21

COUNT III

22

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

23

(42 U.S.C. § 1982)

24

78. Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate the allegations contained in

25 paragraphs I through 63 above as if fully set forth herein.

26

79. Section 42 U.S.C. §1982 provides that all citizens of the United States

27 "shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by White

28 citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal

-_._----

17
- - - - - - _ . _ . _ . _.. ---_...._----_._-
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CV-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page19 of 24

property."

2

80. Defbndant WACHOVIA has discriminated against Plaintiffs and the

3 Class with respect to their home mortgage loans by charging Plaintiffs and the

4 Class higher interest rates and other discretionary fees than Defendant

5 WACHOVIA has charged similarly situated non-minority consumers. As a result

6 of Defendant WACHOVIA's conduct, Plaintiffs and the Class have not had the

7 same right as Caucasians to inherit, purchase, sell, hold, and convey real property.

8 Defendant WACHOVIA has thereby violated 42 U.S.C. § 1982.

9

81. Detl~ndant WACHOVIA's violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982 was

10 intentional and malicious.

11

82. As a proximate result of Defendant WACHOVIA's violation of 42

12 U.S.C. § 1982, Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been injured, and are

13 entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief and damages, or make whole equitable

14 relief. In addition, Defendant WACHOVIA's conduct as alleged herein was

15 intentional, willful, wanton, reckless, malicious, outrageous, or otherwise

16 aggravated beyond mere negligence. Defendant WACHOVIA acted with malice

17 and reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiffs and members

18 of the Class. As a result, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to

19 punitive damages.

20

COUNT IV

21

VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT

22

(42 U.S.C. §§ 3601- 3619)

23

83. Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege and incorporate the allegations in paragraphs

24 1 through 63 above as if fully set forth herein.

25

84. Mortgage lending and the providing of residential mortgage loans is a

26 "residential real estate-related transaction" within the meaning of the FHA. 42

27 U.S.C. § 3605(b).

28 / / /

18

--.------,-------------:--.,--,---~

..

. .... -=-::-=---::::-:--:-:-::-::-

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CV-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page20 of 24

85. By imposing higher interest rates and other discretionary fees on

2 residential mortgage loans to Plaintiffs and Class Members than it imposed on non-

3 minority mortgage borrowers, Defendant WACHOVIA has discriminated against

4 Plaintiffs and members of the Class concerning their ability to participate in real

5 estate-related transactions, and in the terms and conditions of such transactions, in

6 violation of the FHA. 42 U.S.C. § 3605(a).

7

86. In addition, Defendant WACHOVIA' s pricing policies and procedures

8 (including yield spread premiums), which provide financial incentives to its

9 mortgage brokers and correspondent lenders to make subjective decisions to

10 increase interest rates and charge additional fees and costs, had a disparate impact

11 upon Plaintiffs and Class Members.

12

87. As a proximate result of Defendant WACHOVIA's violation of 42

13 U.S.C. § 3605, Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been injured and are

14 entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief and damages, or make whole equitable

15 relief.

16

88. In addition, Defendant WACHOVIA's conduct as alleged herein was

17 intentional, willthl, wanton, reckless, malicious, outrageous, or otherwise

18 aggravated beyond mere negligence. Defendant WACHOVIA acted with malice

19 and reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiffs and members

20 of the Class. As a result, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to

21 punitive damages.

22

89. Moreover, Defendant WACHOVIA continues to discriminate in

23 violation of the FHA against members of the Class every time Defendant

24 WACHOVIA provides a home mortgage loan as described herein. If not enjoined 25 from such violation by the Court, Defendant WACHOVIA will continue to engage 26 in conduct that disregards the rights of Plaintiffs and members of the Class, and

27 cause Plaintiffs and members of the Class irreparable injury for which there is no 28 adequate remedy at law. 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c).

19 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CV-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page21 of 24

90. Plaintiffs and members of the Class ask this Court to declare the rights

2 of the parties herein regarding Defendant WACHOVIA' s obligation to participate

3 in credit transactions without discriminating against applicants for credit on the 4 basis of the applicants' race.

5

COUNT IV

6

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

7

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs request the following

8 relief:

9

A. An order determining that the action is a proper class action pursuant

10 to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

11

B. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs and Class Members costs and

12 disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable

13 attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs;

14

C. A judgment granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as

15 permitted by law or equity, including rescission, restitution, reformation, attaching,

16 impounding, or imposing a constructive trust upon, or otherwise restricting, the

17 proceeds of Defendant's ill-gotten funds to ensure that Plaintiffs and Class

18 Members have an effective remedy;

19

D. A judgment awarding Plaintiffs and Class Members compensatory

20 damages according to proof;

21

E. A judgment awarding punitive damages to Plaintiffs and Class

22 Members;

23

F. A judgment granting declaratory and injunctive relief and all relief that

24 flows from such injunctive and declaratory relief; and

25 / / /

26 / / /

27 / / /

28 / / /

20
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CY-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page22 of 24

G. A judgment or other order granting such other and further relief as the

2 Court deems just and proper including, but not limited to, recessionary relief and

3 reformation.

4

DATED this 2ih day of September, 2007.

5

Respectfully submitted,

6

CHAVEZ & GERTLER, L.L.P.

7

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN

8

& BALINT, P.C.

9 LERACH, COUGHLIN, STOIA, GELLER

10

RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP

11
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS

12

ADVOCATES

13
-, _.. '

14

.,,-_..........." ....", ..

15

By: Nance F: Becker

16

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- - - _.._--_. - - - - - - -

21 ..._-_._---_.. _ - - - - - - - - . - - -
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CY-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page23 of 24

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

2

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

3 Dated: September 27,2007
4
5
6
7

Respectfully submitted,
CHAVEZ & GERTLER, L.L.P.
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.

8

LERACH, COUGHLIN, STOIA, GELLER

9

RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP

10

HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS

11

ADVOCATES

12

13

By: Nance F. Becker

14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15 Additional Counsel:

16 BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
17 Andrew S. Friedman (to seek pro hac vice admission) Wendy 1. Harrison {CA 151(90)
18 290 1 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000 19 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Telephone: (602) 274-1100 20 athedman@BFFB..com
wharrison@BFFB.com 21

22 LERACH, COUGHLIN, STOIA, GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP
23 John Stoia (CA SBN 141757) Ted Pintar (CA SBN131372)
24 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
25 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058
26 TedP@csgrr.com j stoia@lerachlaw.com
27

Maeve Elise Brown (CA SBN 137512) HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS ADVOCATES P.O. Box 29435, Oakland, CA 94604 1305 Franklin St., Ste. 305, Oakland CA 94612 Telephone: 510-271-8443 melisebrown@heraca.org

28

22
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, Case No. No. 3:07-CY-4603

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document8 Filed09/27/07 Page24 of 24

2
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
4 COUNTY OF MARIN

PROOl<' OF SERVICE
ec.c.p. §1013a(3»
) ) ss. )

5

I am employed in the County of Marin, State of California. J am over the age of 18

6 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is Chavez & Gertler LLP, 42 Miller Avenue, Mill Valley, CA 94941.

7 On September 27,2007, I served the foregoing documents:
8

9

• FIRST AMENDE)) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: Violations of the

Equal Credit Opportunity Act; Violations of the Fair Housing Act; Violations

10

of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.c. §1981; Violations of the Civil Rights Act, 42

U.S.C. §1982 II

12 on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a scaled Federal Express envelope addressed to each as follows:

Joyce Camp, Paralegal 14 Wachovia Corporation 15 30 I South College Street
Suite 4000 16 Charlotte, NC 28288-0013

Beerly Enj aian Legal Department World Savings Bank 1901 Harrison Street Oakland, Ca 94612

17
18 IX] BY FEDERAL EXPRESS: The above mentioned documents were served on the interested parties in this action by depositing them in a box or other facility regularly
19 maintained by Fedl~ral Express, or delivering it to an authorized carrier or driver authorized by Federal Express to receive documents, in an envelope or package designated by Federal
20 Express with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person to be served at the 21 address shown below.

22

Executed on September 27,2007, at Mill Valley, California.

23

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

24 above is true and correct. I declare that I am employed in the oftice of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.

25

26

27

Cate L. Coelho

28

 
 Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-1 Filed10/14/09 Page1 of 7
EXHIBIT A

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-1 Filed10/14/09 Page2 of 7
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I. The Parties This Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into as between Leticia Zamora, an individual residing in the State of California, on behalf of herself and her spouse, dependents, heirs, successors and assigns (hereinafter, "Zamora") on the one hand and, on the other, Wachovia Mortgage F.S.B., f!k/a World Savings Bank, F.S.B. (collectively, "World"), on behalf of themselves and each of their parent, subsidiary and affiliate corporations and entities and successors and assigns, including, but not limited to, Wachovia Corporation and Wells Fargo & Co., and each of their directors, officers, employees, investors, shareholders, actual agents, authorized representatives, attorneys and insurers (collectively, "World"). World and Zamora are referred to herein collectively as the "Parties." II. Effective Date The Agreement shall become effective upon the date on which the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issues an order approving the material terms of the Agreement and a separate settlement agreement between World and Daniel and Elizabeth Perez (the "Perezes"), as provided in Section V below (the "Effective Date"). III. Summary of the Parties' Dispute In or about July of2005, Zamora and her spouse, Javier Zamora, as co-borrowers, executed a promissory note in favor of"World Savings Bank, F.S.B." (the "Note") for the purpose of receiving Loan Number 0029861606, in the principal amount of$470,000 (the "Loan"), which was secured by a parcel of real property located at 1165 Orchid Street in Livermore, California (the "Property''). Leticia and Javier Zamora and the Perezes collectively filed a putative "Class Action Complaint" against World (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco/Oakland Division (the "Court") entitled Leticia Zamora, eta!. v. Wachovia Corporation, eta!., and currently denominated as Action No. 3:07-CV-4603 JSW (the "Action"). On September 27, 2007, Zamora and the Perezes ("Plaintiffs") filed a putative "First Amended Class Action Complaint" in the Action. (The complaint and first amended complaint in the Action are collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Complaint.") Plaintiffs asserted and/or threatened specific claims in the Complaint relating to the Loan and/or to alleged policies, procedures and actions that Plaintiffs contend were undertaken by World with respect to Plaintiffs individually as well as with respect to a putative class of minority borrowers who entered into loan transactions with World. The Complaint purports to set forth claims for reliefby both Plaintiffs and the putative class under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act [15 U.S.C. Section 1691, et seq.], the Fair Housing Act [42 U.S.C. Section 3601 et. seq.] and the Civil Rights Act [42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 et seq. and 1982 et seq.] IV. Compromise and Release Provisions Zamora and World have agreed to resolve, fully and finally, all of Zamora's actual and potential individual claims against World, including, but not limited to, the claims set forth on Zamora's behalf in the Complaint, and including all matters, known or unknown, which have been, or could have been, raised, between Zamora and World in the Action, up to and including the Effective Date.
US_ACTIVE-1 02438444.1-JNELSON 10/14/09 11 :04 AM

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-1 Filed10/14/09 Page3 of 7
Accordingly, for good and valuable consideration, including the mutual covenants herein contained, the Parties agree as follows:
A. Lump Sum Payment to Zamora Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, World shall pay to Zamora, by cashiers' or certified check(s), the lump sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000), in good funds, as full and final satisfaction of all of Zamora's claims.
B. Payment of Zamora's Attorneys' Fees and Costs Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, World agrees to pay to the trust account of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C., as Zamora's co-counsel of record in this Action, by cashiers' or certified check(s) or by wire transfer, the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000), in good funds, as full and final satisfaction of all claims for attorneys' fees incurred by or on behalf of Zamora and/or the Perezes in or relating in any way to the Action against World, World's participation in the Loan and/or any claim that Zamora has or may have against World. Zamora and her counsel of record agree that this sum shall be the full amount claimed by Zamora, the Perezes or their counsel at any time for attorneys' fees or costs that they and/or their counsel have incurred relating to such matters, and including any and all work performed for or on behalf of Zamora and/or the Perezes in or related to the Action by, but not limited to, Bonnett Fairboum Friedman & Balint, P.C., Roddy, Klein & Ryan, Chavez & Gertler, L.L.P., Housing and Economic Rights Advocates, Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check LLP and/or Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP. In all other respects the Parties shall each bear their own costs and attorneys' fees relating to Zamora's and the Perezes' individual claims in the Action and all matters referenced herein. Zamora and her counsel agree that World bears no responsibility for the division or allocation among Zamora's counsel of any fees paid by World pursuant to this Agreement.
E. General Release With the sole exception of the executory provisions of this Agreement, Zamora hereby forever releases World of and from any and all causes of action, claims and/or demands, whether known or unknown, which Zamora now has or has ever had, or believed she has or ever had, from the beginning oftime up to the Effective Date of this Agreement, and including specifically, but not necessarily limited to, all claims for relief brought, attempted to be brought or which could have been brought in the Action and/or arising out of or related in any way to the Loan. Zamora further acknowledges that this release extends to any claims that other persons or entities might bring or attempt to bring with respect to the Loan and/or on behalf of Zamora as a member of an actual or putative class that relate in any way to the Loan or the lending activities of World. F. Covenant Not to Sue Zamora agrees that she will not bring, commence, maintain or prosecute, directly or indirectly, or assign any right to bring, maintain or prosecute, any action at law or proceeding in equity or any legal or administrative proceeding or other claim for damages or other relief against World, based in whole or in part upon the matters which are the subject of Zamora's general release as described in Paragraph IV.E of this Agreement. G. Dismissal of Zamora's Individual Claims for Relief In consideration of the agreements and other consideration provided herein, Zamora agrees that, within ten (10) business days after Effective Date, Zamora's counsel of record in the Action shall
- 2-

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-1 Filed10/14/09 Page4 of 7
execute and submit to the court in the Action, a Request for, and Proposed Order of, Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice of each and every cause of action alleged in the Action by Zamora on behalf of herself individually, and removal of Zamora as a named putative class representative in the Action.
H. Return of Confidential Documents Zamora directs her Counsel to return to World all documents delivered to Zamora and/or her counsel in connection with the private mediation sessions among the parties held before the Honorable Edward Infante (ret.) Zamora represents and warrants that, at all times referred to herein, she alone owned the claims that she is releasing under this Agreement, that no other person or entity has or has had any interest in said claims and that she have the sole right to execute this Agreement regarding such claims. Zamora further represents and warrants that she has not and will not have sold, assigned, conveyed or otherwise transferred, prior to the Effective Date, any claim or demand which is the subject of this Agreement that she has ever had, or now have, against World, whether directly or through another person or entity. VI. Court Approval Required The Parties agree that this Agreement, and their proposed obligations as set forth herein, are contingent upon a finding by the Court that the terms of this Agreement are fair to the Parties and were reached in good faith. The Parties agree to present this Agreement promptly to the Court and to cooperate in a joint application for an order by the Court making such a determination. VII. Execution and Court Approval of Perez Settlement Required The Parties agree that this Agreement, and their proposed obligations as set forth herein, are further contingent upon: (1) the completion and execution of a separate settlement agreement between the Perezes and World regarding the Perezes' individual claims in the Action (the "Perez Agreement"); and (2) a finding by the Court that the terms of the Perez Agreement are fair to the Perezes and World and were reached in good faith. World and Zamora's counsel agree to use their best reasonable efforts to present the Perez Agreement promptly to the Court and to cooperate in a joint application for an order by the Court making such a determination. VIII. No Admission of Liability This Agreement is intended as means of settling disputed claims, liability for which is expressly denied by each of the respective Parties. Neither this Agreement or any of its terms or considerations is to be deemed, construed or proffered as an admission of liability or responsibility by either Party at any time for any purpose. Zamora's counsel of record in the Action specifically acknowledges, represents and agrees that no present or future plaintiff in the Action, or in any other proceeding, may attempt to introduce the existence, terms or execution of this Agreement by World in the Action or any proceeding for any reason, including but not limited to an offer or proof or evidence of any admission, concession and/or wrongdoing by World. IX. Representation by Independent Legal Counsel Zamora confirms and agrees that she has been represented in negotiations for, and preparation of, this Agreement by independent legal counsel of her own choosing, that her duly authorized representatives and legal counsel have each read this Agreement, that she has had it fully explained to her by her legal counsel, that she is fully aware of its contents and its legal effect
- 3-

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-1 Filed10/14/09 Page5 of 7
and that, under such circumstances, she has voluntarily agreed to execute this Agreement and abide by its terms. X. Waiver of California Civil Code Section 1542 Regarding Unknown Claims Zamora acknowledges that she has been advised by her legal counsel of the existence and legal effect of Section 1542 of the Civil Code of California, and Zamora expressly waives the benefits of that statute. In doing so, Zamora recognizes and confirms her understanding that said statute provides that:
"A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release which, if known by him, must have materially effected his settlement with the debtor." Zamora realizes and acknowledges that she may have sustained, or might sustain in the future, losses because of some action by, or allegedly taken on behalf of, World that is the subject of a release given the other by this Agreement, and Zamora further acknowledges that such losses are presently unknown and unsuspected and/or may manifest in the form of future loss and/or expense. Nonetheless, Zamora acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement has been negotiated and agreed upon in light of this realization and, being fully aware of the situation, Zamora intends to and does release and forever discharge World as set forth above from any and all such unknown claims, including damages which are unknown and unanticipated. XI. Preservation of Claims against Third Parties The Parties each acknowledge and agree that they both have or may have independent claims against third parties, including, but not limited to, direct claims and/or claims for indemnity or equitable contribution and/or claims that arise out of or relate to the matters alleged in the Complaint and/or this Agreement. The Parties further acknowledge and agree that, by entering into this Agreement neither of them intend to or shall be deemed to release such claims or forego the right to pursue such claims, whether in the Action or in any other proceeding. XII. Confidentiality The Parties agree that neither they nor their counsel shall discuss the material terms of the Agreement regarding the consideration paid by World to Zamora, which are set forth in Paragraph IV.A above, with any person, entity or organization not affiliated directly with a party to this agreement other than the Court or their legal counsel, financial advisors or consultants or tax preparers, except as required by operation of law. XIII. Severability The terms of this Agreement are severable. Should any portion (word, clause, phrase, sentence or paragraph) be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void or unenforceable in any particular jurisdiction, such portion shall be considered independent and severable from the remainder and shall not affect the enforceability of the remainder of the Agreement. If any portion as written should be interpreted by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be so broad as to be unenforceable, then such portion shall be restricted only to the extent necessary to make such portion enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
- 4-

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-1 Filed10/14/09 Page6 of 7

XIV. Construction of Terms The Parties have cooperated and participated in the drafting and preparation of this Agreement, and in any dispute over construction or interpretation of this Agreement, no term shall be construed against any Party on the basis that such Party drafted any provisions of this Agreement. XV. Integration Clause This Agreement constitutes the entire and sole agreement between Zamora and World as to the matters referred to herein, and any prior or contemporaneous agreement, promise, negotiation or understanding not expressly set forth in writing within this Agreement shall be of no force or effect. This Agreement shall not be altered, modified or otherwise changed except by a writing executed by both Zamora and a duly authorized representative of World. XVI. Choice of Law, Forum and Venue This Agreement, and the respective rights and obligations of the Parties hereunder, shall be construed under and by the laws of the United States and, to the extent they do not conflict with federal law, the laws of the State of California. The Parties agree further that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and shall be the proper forum and venue for any dispute or matter that arises out of or relates to this Agreement or the formation of this Agreement. XVII. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which, taken together, shall constitute a single instrument.

DATED: October_, 2009.

Leticia Zamora

DATED: October_, 2009.

Wachovia Mortgage F.S.B.

By----------[Print] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Its: - - - - - - - - - - - - -
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

Reed Smith LLP

Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C

By Jack R. Nelson Attorneys for Wachovia Mortgage FSB

By---------Attorneys for Leticia Zamora

-5-

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-1 Filed10/14/09 Page7 of 7

CERTIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL:

I,

, am a lawyer licensed to practice in the State of _ _ _ _ __

and before the Court. I am one of the counsel of record for Leticia Zamora in the Action. I attest

that Ms. Zamora has personally met with and been advised, by legal counsel of her choosing,

with respect to the nature, effect and terms of this Agreement. I am satisfied that Ms. Zamora

fully understands the nature and effect of this Agreement, as well as all of the rights that she is

compromising, extinguishing and/or gaining by executing this Agreement.

I understand and agree that World, as well as any court of competent jurisdiction, is entitled to rely on my representation set forth herein in executing, and hereafter enforcing, this Agreement.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of California that the foregoing Certification ofPlaintiffs Counsel is true and correct.

Dated: October_, 2009.

-6-

 
 Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-2 Filed10/14/09 Page1 of 10
EXHIBIT B

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-2 Filed10/14/09 Page2 of 10
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I. The Parties This Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into as between Daniel and Elizabeth Perez, a married couple residing in the State of Arizona, on behalf of themselves and their dependents, heirs, successors and assigns (hereinafter, collectively the "Perezes") on the one hand and, on the other, Wachovia Mortgage F.S.B., f/k/a World Savings Bank, F.S.B. (collectively, "World"), on behalf of themselves and each of their parent, subsidiary and affiliate corporations and entities, including, but not limited to, Wachovia Corporation and Wells Fargo & Co., and each oftheir directors, officers, employees, investors, shareholders, actual agents, authorized representatives, attorneys and insurers (collectively, "World"). World and the Perezes are referred to herein collectively as the "Parties." II. Effective Date The Agreement shall become effective upon the date on which the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issues an order approving the material terms of both this Agreement and a separate settlement agreement between World and Leticia Zamora, as provided in Section V below (the "Effective Date"). III. Summary of the Parties' Dispute In or about April of 2007, the Perezes, as co-borrowers, executed a promissory note in favor of "World Savings Bank, F.S.B." (the "Note") for the purpose of receiving Loan Number 0045300126, in the principal amount of$423,750 (the "Loan"), which was secured by a parcel of real property located at 11926 South 38th Avenue in Laveen, Arizona (the "Property"). The Perezes and Leticia and Javier Zamora collectively filed a putative "Class Action Complaint" against World (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco/Oakland Division (the "Court") entitled Leticia Zamora, et al. v. Wachovia Corporation, et al., and currently denominated as Action No. 3:07-CV-4603 JSW (the "Action"). On September 27, 2007, the Perezes and Leticia Zamora ("Plaintiffs") filed a putative "First Amended Class Action Complaint" in the Action. (The complaint and first amended complaint in the Action are collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Complaint.") Plaintiffs asserted and/or threatened specific claims in the Complaint relating to the Loan and/or to alleged policies, procedures and actions that Plaintiffs contend were undertaken by World with respect to Plaintiffs individually as well as with respect to a putative class of minority borrowers who entered into loan transactions with World. The Complaint purports to set forth claims for relief by both Plaintiffs and the putative class under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act [15 U.S.C. Section 1691, et seq.], the Fair Housing Act [42 U.S.C. Section 3601 et. seq.] and the Civil Rights Act [42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 et seq. and 1982 et seq.] IV. Compromise and Release Provisions The Perezes and World have agreed to resolve, fully and finally, all of the Perezes' actual and potential individual claims against World, including, but not limited to, the claims set forth on the Perezes' behalf in the Complaint, and including all matters, known or unknown, which have been, or could have been, raised, between the Perezes and World in the Action, up to and including the Effective Date.
US_ACTIVE-102438351.1-JNELSON 10/14/0911:04 AM

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-2 Filed10/14/09 Page3 of 10
Accordingly, for good and valuable consideration, including the mutual covenants herein contained, the Parties agree as follows:
A. Modification of the Terms of the Loan No later than ten (10) business days after the Effective Date, World shall provide the Perezes with the following material modifications to the Loan, as of September 30, 2009 (collectively, the "Loan Modification"):
1. Reduce the principal balance of the Loan to $380,000, plus certain escrow account advances made by World on behalf of the Perezes (in the approximate amount of $2,400); and
2. Convert the interest rate to a fixed rate of 1.67% per annum; and 3. Extend the term of the Loan to 40 years. World will not charge or assess to the Perezes any fees or costs for the Loan Modification or in connection with the preparation, execution or recording of any documentation of the Loan Modification. The Loan Modification shall be in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Perezes and World each agree to execute the Loan Modification any and all other documents deemed necessary by World, in its sole discretion, to effectuate the Loan Modification, provided that any such documents are in accordance with this Agreement and applicable law. The Perezes agree that the Loan Modification is the product of negotiation and resolution of disputed claims and thus shall not be subject to or governed by any federal or state consumer lending disclosure or timing requirements, including, but not limited to, those set forth in the federal Truth-In-Lending Act [15 U.S.C. Section 1640 et seq.]. B. Forgiveness of Certain Delinquent Loan Payments World agrees to forgive the Perezes' presently overdue and unpaid regularly scheduled monthly payments on the Loan through September 14, 2009 (the "Delinquent Payments"), as well as any late charges and/or fees associated with the Delinquent Payments. C. Attorneys' Fees and Costs Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, World agrees to pay to the trust account of Bonnett Fairboum Friedman & Balint, P.C., as the Perezes' co-counsel of record in this Action, by cashiers' or certified check(s) or by wire transfer, the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000), in good funds, as full and final satisfaction of all claims for attorneys' fees incurred by or on behalf of the Perezes and/or Zamora in or relating in any way to the Action against World, World's participation in the Loan and/or any claim that the Perezes has or may have against World. The Perezes, Zamora and their counsel of record agree that this sum shall be the full amount claimed by the Perezes and/or Zamora or their counsel at any time for attorneys' fees or costs that the Perezes, Zamora and/or their counsel have incurred relating to such matters, and including any and all work performed for or on behalf of the Perezes or Zamora in or related to the Action by, but not limited to, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C., Roddy, Klein & Ryan, Chavez & Gertler, L.L.P ., Housing and Economic Rights Advocates, Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check LLP and/or Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP. In all other respects the Parties shall each bear their own costs and attorneys' fees relating to the Perezes' individual claims in the Action and all matters referenced herein. The Perezes and their
- 2-

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-2 Filed10/14/09 Page4 of 10
counsel agree that World bears no responsibility for the division or allocation among the Perezes' counsel of any fees paid by World pursuant to this Agreement.
D. General Release With the sole exception of the executory provisions of this Agreement, the Perezes hereby forever release World of and from any and all causes of action, claims and/or demands, whether known or unknown, which the Perezes now have or have ever had, or believed they have or ever had, from the beginning of time up to the Effective Date of this Agreement, and including specifically, but not necessarily limited to, all claims for relief brought, attempted to be brought or which could have been brought in the Action and/or arising out of or related in any way to the Loan and/or the modification of the Loan. The Perezes further acknowledge that this release extends to any claims that other persons or entities might bring or attempt to bring on behalf of the Perezes as a member of an actual or putative class that relate in any way to the Loan or the lending activities of World. E. Covenant Not to Sue The Perezes agree that they will not bring, commence, maintain or prosecute, directly or indirectly, or assign any right to bring, maintain or prosecute, any action at law or proceeding in equity or any legal or administrative proceeding or other claim for damages or other relief against World, based in whole or in part upon the matters which are the subject of the Perezes' general releases as described in Paragraph IV.D of this Agreement. F. Dismissal of the Perezes' Individual Claims for Relief In consideration of the agreements and other consideration provided herein, the Perezes agree that, within ten (10) business days after Effective Date, they shall cause their counsel of record in the Action to submit to the Court a Request for, and Proposed Order of, Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice of each and every cause of action alleged in the Action by the Perezes on behalf of themselves individually and removal of the Perezes as named putative class representatives in the Action. G. Return of Confidential Mediation Documents Promptly upon the execution ofthe Loan Modification, the Perezes direct their Counsel to return to World all documents delivered to the Perezes and/or their counsel in connection with the private mediation sessions among the parties held before the Honorable Edward Infante (ret.). V. Representations and Warranties The Perezes represent and warrant that, at all times referred to herein, they alone owned the claims that they are each releasing under this Agreement, that no other person or entity has or has had any interest in said claims and that they have the sole right to execute this Agreement regarding such claims. The Perezes further represent and warrant that neither of them have or will have sold, assigned, conveyed or otherwise transferred, prior to the Effective Date, any claim or demand which either of them ever had, or now have, against the other, whether directly or through another person or entity. The Perezes further represent and warrant that they have not, and will not have prior to the Effective Date, sold, transferred, gifted, deeded, encumbered or otherwise transferred or diluted in any way their fee ownership interest in the Property such that World's security interest in the Property for the Loan has been or will be extinguished, disrupted or diminished or diluted in any way. The Perezes further represent and warrant that, pending completion and execution of the
- 3-

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-2 Filed10/14/09 Page5 of 10
documentation of the modification of the Loan, they will keep the Property in good repair and will not encumber, transfer or otherwise dilute in any way their fee ownership interest in the Property, such that World's security interest in the Property under the Loan and/or the modified Loan will meet World's requirements. VI. Court Approval Required The Parties agree that this Agreement, and their proposed obligations as set forth herein, are contingent upon a finding by the Court that the terms of this Agreement are fair to the Parties and were reached in good faith. The Parties agree to present this Agreement promptly to the Court and to cooperate in a joint application for an order by the Court making such a determination. VII. Execution and Court Approval of Zamora Settlement Required The Parties agree that this Agreement, and their proposed obligations as set forth herein, are further contingent upon: (1) the completion and execution of a separate settlement agreement between Zamora and World regarding Zamora's individual claims in the Action (the "Zamora Agreement"); and (2) a finding by the Court that the terms of the Zamora Agreement are fair to Zamora and World and were reached in good faith. World and the Perezes' counsel agree to use their best reasonable efforts to present the Zamora Agreement promptly to the Court and to cooperate in a joint application for an order by the Court making such a determination. VIII. No Admission of Liability This Agreement is intended as means of settling disputed claims, liability for which is expressly denied by each of the respective Parties. Neither this Agreement or any of its terms or considerations is to be deemed, construed or proffered as an admission of liability or responsibility by either Party at any time for any purpose. The Perezes' counsel of record in the Action specifically acknowledges, represents and agrees that no present or future plaintiff in the Action, or in any other proceeding, may attempt to introduce the existence, terms or execution of this Agreement by World in the Action or any proceeding for any reason, including but not limited to an offer or proof or evidence of any admission, concession and/or wrongdoing by World. IX. Representation by Independent Legal Counsel The Perezes confirm and agree that they have been represented in negotiations for, and preparation of, this Agreement by independent legal counsel of their own choosing, that their duly authorized representatives and legal counsel have each read this Agreement, that they each have had it fully explained to them by their legal counsel, that they are fully aware of its contents and its legal effect and that, under such circumstances, they have each voluntarily agreed to execute this Agreement and abide by its terms. X. Waiver of California Civil Code Section 1542 Regarding Unknown Claims The Perezes each have been advised by their legal counsel of the existence and legal effect of Section 1542 of the Civil Code of California, and each of them expressly waives the benefits of that statute. In doing so, the Perezes each recognize and confirm their understanding that said statute provides that:
"A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release which, if known by him, must have materially effected his settlement with the debtor."
- 4-

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-2 Filed10/14/09 Page6 of 10
The Perezes both realize and acknowledge that one or both of them may have sustained, or might sustain in the future, losses because of some action by, or allegedly taken on behalf of, World that is the subject of a release given the other by this Agreement, and further acknowledge that such losses are presently unknown and unsuspected and/or may manifest in the form of future loss and/or expense. Nonetheless, the Perezes each acknowledge and agree that this Agreement has been negotiated and agreed upon in light of this realization and, being fully aware of the situation, they do each intend to release and forever discharge the other as set forth above from any and all such unknown claims, including damages which are unknown and unanticipated. XI. Preservation of Claims against Third Parties The Parties each acknowledge and agree that they both have or may have independent claims against third parties, including, but not limited to, direct claims and/or claims for indemnity or equitable contribution and/or claims that arise out of or relate to the matters alleged in the Complaint and/or this Agreement. The Parties further acknowledge and agree that, by entering into this Agreement neither of them intend to or shall be deemed to release such claims or forego the right to pursue such claims, whether in the Action or in any other proceeding. XII. Severability The terms of this Agreement are severable. Should any portion (word, clause, phrase, sentence or paragraph) be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void or unenforceable in any particular jurisdiction, such portion shall be considered independent and severable from the remainder and shall not affect the enforceability of the remainder of the Agreement. If any portion as written should be interpreted by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be so broad as to be unenforceable, then such portion shall be restricted only to the extent necessary to make such portion enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. XIII. Confidentiality The Parties agree that neither they nor their counsel shall discuss the material terms of the Agreement regarding the consideration paid by World to the Perezes, which are set forth in Paragraphs IV.A, IV.B and IV.C above, with any person, entity or organization not affiliated directly with a party to this agreement other than the Court or their legal counsel, financial advisors or consultants or tax preparers, except as required by operation oflaw. XIII. Construction of Terms The Parties have cooperated and participated in the drafting and preparation of this Agreement, and in any dispute over construction or interpretation of this Agreement, no term shall be construed against any Party on the basis that such Party drafted any provisions of this Agreement. XIV. Integration Clause This Agreement, together with the executed Loan Modification, shall constitute the entire and sole agreement between the Perezes and World as to the matters referred to herein, and any prior or contemporaneous agreement, promise, negotiation or understanding not expressly set forth in writing within this Agreement shall be of no force or effect. With the sole exception of future documentation of the Loan Modification, this Agreement shall not be altered, modified or otherwise changed except by a writing executed by both the Perezes and a duly authorized representative of World.
- 5-

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-2 Filed10/14/09 Page7 of 10

XV. Choice of Law, Forum and Venue This Agreement, and the Loan Modification, the respective rights and obligations of the Parties hereunder, shall be construed under and by the laws of the United States and, to the extent they do not conflict with federal law, the laws of the State of California. The Parties agree further that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter and shall be the proper forum and venue for any dispute or matter that arises out of or relates to this Agreement or the formation of this Agreement. XV. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which, taken together, shall constitute a single instrument.

DATED: October_, 2009. DATED: October_, 2009.

Daniel Perez Elizabeth Perez

DATED: October_, 2009.

Wachovia Mortgage F.S.B.

By------------
[Print] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Its: - - - - - - - - - - - - -
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

Reed Smith LLP

Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C.

By
Jack R. Nelson Attorneys for Wachovia Mortgage F.S.B.

By---------Attorneys for Daniel and Elizabeth Perez

CERTIFICATION OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL:

I,

, am a lawyer licensed to practice in the State of _ _ _ __

and before the Court. I am one of the counsels of record for the Perezes in the Action. I attest

that the Perezes have personally met with and been advised, by legal counsel of their choosing,

with respect to the nature, effect and terms of this Agreement. I am satisfied that the Perezes

- 6-

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-2 Filed10/14/09 Page8 of 10 each fully understand the nature and effect of this Agreement, as well as all of the rights that they are compromising, extinguishing and/or gaining by executing this Agreement. I understand and agree that World, as well as any court of competent jurisdiction, is entitled to rely on my representation set forth herein in executing, and hereafter enforcing, this Agreement. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of California that the foregoing Certification of Plaintiffs Counsel is true and correct. Dated: October_, 2009.
- 7-

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-2 Filed10/14/09 Page9 of 10

EXHIBIT A- FORM OF LOAN MODIFICATION

Date of this Agreement: Loan Number: Property Address:
Note Date: Return Date for this Agreement

September 16, 2009 0045300126 11926 S 38TH AVE LAVEEN, AZ 85339-2041 March 30, 2007 _ _ _ _ _,2009

MODIFICATION AGREEMENT

This Modification Agreement ("Agreement") is made as of the date above between the undersigned ("Borrower"), as obligor(s) on the Loan described above or as title holder(s) to the Property, as the context may require, and Wachovia Mortgage, FSB ("Lender"). Borrower agrees that, except as expressly modified in this Agreement, the Note and the Security Instrument remain in full force and effect and are valid, binding obligations upon Borrower, except as discharged in Bankruptcy, and are properly secured by the Property.

Unless this Agreement is executed without alteration and returned by the Return Date above this Agreement will be of no force or effect and the Loan will remain subject to all existing terms and conditions provided in the Note and Security Instrument. This Agreement will only be deemed
received when actually received by Lender at: Wachovia Mortgage, Loan Modifications, TX1351, P. 0. Box 659558, San Antonio, Texas 78265-9558.

1. If outstanding and owed as of the Date of this Agreement, Lender agrees to: a. Waive all outstanding Late Charge Fees, Return Check Fees, Attorney's Fees, Appraisal Fees,
and Property Inspection Fees on the Loan; and
b. Add amounts owed for "Escrow Amounts Advanced" to the Loan balance.

2. Lender and Borrower further agree to modify the Loan as follows: a. Forgive accrued, outstanding, and not capitalized interest through b. Reduce the balance owed on the Loan to c. Modify the interest rate to a fixed interest rate of d. Loan begins to accrue interest at the fixed interest rate on e. Modify the payment to a monthly principal and interest payment of f The first payment under this Agreement is due on
g. The maturity date of the Loan is

September 14, 2009 $380,000.00 1.670% September 15, 2009 $1,092.68 October 15, 2009 September 15, 2049

Subsequent monthly payments will be due on the same day of each following month. The payment amount referenced above DOES NOT include amounts necessary for escrow.

3. The Interest Change Dates, Calculation oflnterest Rate Changes, Payment Change Dates, Calculation of Payment Changes, Index and Payment Cap Limitation no longer apply.

4. The Loan may not be assumed by any other person or entity.

-8-

Case3:07-cv-04603-JSW Document63-2 Filed10/14/09 Page10 of 10

5. If a biweekly loan, the Loan will convert to a monthly payment schedule. References to "biweekly," "every two weeks," and "every other Monday" shall be read as "monthly," except as it relates to the Modified Maturity Date. Interest will be charged on a 360-day year, divided into twelve (12) segments. Interest charged at all other times will be computed by multiplying the unpaid principal by the interest rate, dividing the result by 365, and then multiplying that daily interest amount by the actual number of days for which interest is then due.
As part of the conversion from biweekly to monthly payments, any automatic withdrawal of payments (auto drafting) in effect with Lender for the Loan are cancelled.
6. Lender acknowledges that one or more of the undersigned may have filed for bankruptcy or may have received a discharge in a bankruptcy proceeding. Said individual(s) acknowledge and agree that this Agreement is not a reaffirmation agreement as defined in 11 U.S.C. §524, that any references in this Agreement that imply liability under the Note obligation instead refer to the amounts secured by the property and is not meant to impart personal liability on such individual(s), and that this Agreement and communications related to this Agreement are not attempts to collect, assess or recover a claim against the individual(s) that arose before the commencement of the bankruptcy or that has been discharged.
Borrower agrees that (a) Borrower has read this Agreement in its entirety; (b) Borrower has consulted, or had opportunity to consult, with an attorney of Borrower's choosing; and (c) Borrower has voluntarily entered into this Agreement.

BORROWER(S):
DRAFT DANIEL PEREZ
DRAFT ELIZABETH PEREZ

Wachovia Mortgage, FSB
DRAFT Mary C. Reeder Senior Vice President

- 9-

 
 Case: 3:07-cv-4603 As of: 10/25/2012 07:49 PM PDT 1 of 11
ADRMOP,CLOSED,E−Filing,PROTO,PRVADR
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:07−cv−04603−JSW

Zamora et al v. Wachovia Corporation et al Assigned to: Hon. Jeffrey S. White Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff
Javier Zamora

Date Filed: 09/05/2007 Date Terminated: 11/10/2009 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Nance Felice Becker Chavez &Gertler LLP 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 415−381−5599 Fax: 415−381−5572 Email: nance@chavezgertler.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Theodore J. Pintar Robbins Geller Rudman &Dowd LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101−3301 (619) 231−1058 Fax: (619) 231−7423 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew S. Friedman Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman &Balint, P.C 2325 E. Camelback Road Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 602−274−1100 Fax: 602−274−1199 Email: afriedman@bffb.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Donna Siegel−Moffa Schiffrin Barroway Topaz &Kessler LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (610) 667−7706 Fax: (610) 667−7056 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward W. Ciolko Kessler Topaz Meltzer &Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Radnor, PA 19087 610−667−7706 Fax: 610−667−7056 Email: eciolko@ktmc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gary Edward Klein Klein Kavanagh Costello, LLP 85 Merrimac St. 4th Floor

Case: 3:07-cv-4603 As of: 10/25/2012 07:49 PM PDT 2 of 11
Boston, MA 02114 (617) 357−5500 Email: Klein@kkcllp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jack R. Nelson Reed Smith LLP 101 Second Street Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94120−7936 415−543−8700 Fax: 415−391−8269 Email: jnelson@reedsmith.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Stoia , Jr. Robbins Geller Rudman &Dowd LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101−3301 (619) 231−1058 Fax: (619) 231−7423 Email: jstoia@csgrr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan E Gertler Chavez &Gertler LLP 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 415−381−5599 Fax: 415−381−5572 Email: jon@chavezgertler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph H. Meltzer Kessler Topaz Meltzer &Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 610−667−7706 Fax: 610−667−7056 Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph A Weeden Kessler Topaz Meltzer &Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 610−667−7706 Fax: 610−667−7056 Email: jweeden@ktmc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leslie E. Hurst Blood Hurst &O'Reardon LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 619−338−1100 Fax: 619−338−1101 Email: lhurst@bholaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Diane Fialco Chavez &Gertler LLP 42 Miller Ave. Mill Valley, CA 94941 415 381−5599

Case: 3:07-cv-4603 As of: 10/25/2012 07:49 PM PDT 3 of 11

Fax: 415 381−5572 Email: lisa@chavezgertler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Andrew Chavez Chavez &Gertler LLP 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 415−381−5599 Fax: 415−381−5572 Email: mark@chavezgertler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Anthony Muhic Kessler Topaz Meltzer &Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 610−667−7706 Fax: 610−667−7056 Email: pmuhic@ktmc.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Leticia Zamora

represented by Nance Felice Becker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theodore J. Pintar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew S. Friedman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donna Siegel−Moffa (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward W. Ciolko (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary Edward Klein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack R. Nelson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan E Gertler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph H. Meltzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph A Weeden

Case: 3:07-cv-4603 As of: 10/25/2012 07:49 PM PDT 4 of 11

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie E. Hurst (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Diane Fialco (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Andrew Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Anthony Muhic (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wendy Jacobsen Harrison Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman &Balint, P.C. 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 602−274−1100 Fax: 602−274−1199 Email: wharrison@bffb.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Daniel Perez

represented by Nance Felice Becker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theodore J. Pintar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew S. Friedman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donna Siegel−Moffa (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward W. Ciolko (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary Edward Klein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack R. Nelson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan E Gertler

Case: 3:07-cv-4603 As of: 10/25/2012 07:49 PM PDT 5 of 11

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph H. Meltzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph A Weeden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie E. Hurst (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lisa Diane Fialco (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark Andrew Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Anthony Muhic (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Wendy Jacobsen Harrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Elizabeth Perez

represented by Nance Felice Becker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theodore J. Pintar (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew S. Friedman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Donna Siegel−Moffa (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward W. Ciolko (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gary Edward Klein (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jack R. Nelson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:07-cv-4603 As of: 10/25/2012 07:49 PM PDT 6 of 11
Jonathan E Gertler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph H. Meltzer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph A Weeden (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leslie E. Hurst (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Diane Fialco (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark Andrew Chavez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Anthony Muhic (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wendy Jacobsen Harrison (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Wachovia Corporation TERMINATED: 11/19/2007
Defendant World Savings Bank

represented by Jack R. Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather B. Hoesterey State of California Department of Justice 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102−7004 415.703.5506 Fax: 415.703.5480 Email: heather.hoesterey@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jack R. Nelson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heather B. Hoesterey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

Case: 3:07-cv-4603 As of: 10/25/2012 07:49 PM PDT 7 of 11

09/05/2007
09/05/2007
09/05/2007 09/06/2007 09/10/2007 09/13/2007
09/13/2007 09/17/2007 09/19/2007 09/20/2007
09/20/2007 09/27/2007 10/03/2007 10/04/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007

1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT for (1) Violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, (2) Violations of the Fair Housing Act, (3) Violations of the Civil Rights Act &(4) Violations of the Civil Rights Act − [No Summons Issued] against Wachovia Corporation &World Savings Bank, [Filing Fee: $350.00, Receipt Number 34611010142]. Filed by Plaintiffs Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora &Leticia Zamora. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2007) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due 12/3/2007 &Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/10/2007 at 1:30 PM.. (Attachments: #(1) TEH Standing Order). (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2007) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/10/2007 (tn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/10/2007)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant World Savings Bank. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Wachovia Corporation. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
3 APPLICATION of Attorney Andrew S. Friedman for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice −[Filing Fee: $210.00, Receipt Number 34611010491] Filed by Plaintiffs Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora &Leticia Zamora. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2007) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
RECEIVED ORDER: [Proposed] Order Granting re 3 Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice Submitted by Plaintiffs Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora &Leticia Zamora. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/14/2007)
4 Amended MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Andrew S. Friedman (Filing fee $ 210.) filed by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora. (Friedman, Andrew) (Filed on 9/17/2007) (Entered: 09/17/2007)
5 ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting 3 Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Andrew S. Friedman. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2007) (Entered: 09/19/2007)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora. Wachovia Corporation served on 9/13/2007, answer due 10/3/2007. Certificate of Service (Becker, Nance) (Filed on 9/20/2007) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora. World Savings Bank served on 9/10/2007, answer due 10/1/2007. Certificate of Service (Becker, Nance) (Filed on 9/20/2007) (Entered: 09/20/2007)
8 AMENDED COMPLAINT Class Action against Wachovia Corporation, World Savings Bank. Filed byDaniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Leticia Zamora. (Becker, Nance) (Filed on 9/27/2007) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
9 NOTICE by Javier Zamora Notice of Firm Name Change (Stoia, John) (Filed on 10/3/2007) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Leticia Zamora of Standing Order and USDC Guidelines (Becker, Nance) (Filed on 10/4/2007) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
11 Answer Of Defendant World Savings Bank, FSF To Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint; Demand For Jury Trial ANSWER to Amended Complaint byWorld Savings Bank. (Nelson, Jack) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
12 Certificate of Interested Entities by Wachovia Corporation, World Savings Bank Defendants' Certification Of Interested Entities Or Persons (Hoesterey, Heather) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
13 MOTION to Dismiss Of Defendant Wachovia Corporation; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support filed by Wachovia Corporation. Motion Hearing

Case: 3:07-cv-4603 As of: 10/25/2012 07:49 PM PDT 8 of 11

10/30/2007
10/30/2007
10/30/2007
11/16/2007
11/19/2007 11/27/2007 11/28/2007 12/03/2007 12/04/2007 12/05/2007 12/06/2007
12/12/2007
12/12/2007 01/25/2008 01/30/2008 02/04/2008

set for 12/10/2007 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Hoesterey, Heather) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
14 Declaration of C. Vance Beck in Support of 13 MOTION to Dismiss Of Defendant Wachovia Corporation; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support filed byWachovia Corporation. (Related document(s) 13 ) (Hoesterey, Heather) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
15 Request for Judicial Notice re 13 MOTION to Dismiss Of Defendant Wachovia Corporation; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support, 14 Declaration in Support, filed byWachovia Corporation. (Related document(s) 13 , 14 ) (Hoesterey, Heather) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
16 Proposed Order re 15 Request for Judicial Notice, 13 MOTION to Dismiss Of Defendant Wachovia Corporation; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support, 14 Declaration in Support, [Proposed] Order Granting Defendant Wachovia Corporation's Motion To Dismiss by Wachovia Corporation. (Hoesterey, Heather) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
17 STIPULATION for Dismissal Without Prejudice as to Defendant Wachovia Corporation Only by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Leticia Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) # 2 Proposed Order)(Harrison, Wendy) (Filed on 11/16/2007) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
18 STIPULATION AND ORDER dismissing defendant. Wachovia Corporation terminated. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 11/16/07. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2007) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
19 STIPULATION RE SELECTING ADR PROCESS by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Wachovia Corporation, World Savings Bank, Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora. (Nelson, Jack) (Filed on 11/27/2007) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
20 STIPULATION and ORDER selecting ADR process. REFERRING CASE to Private ADR. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 11/27/07. (rbe, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2007) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
21 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Hoesterey, Heather) (Filed on 12/3/2007) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
22 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5b) of discussion of ADR options (Attachments: # 1 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations))(Harrison, Wendy) (Filed on 12/4/2007) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
23 ORDER of disqualification. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 12/05/07. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2007) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
24 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Jeffrey S. White for all further proceedings. Judge Hon. Thelton E. Henderson no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 12/6/07. (mab, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2007) (Entered: 12/06/2007)
25 INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 2/1/2008 01:30 PM. Case Management Statement due by 1/25/2008.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 12/11/07. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2007) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora of Order Setting CMC and Requiring Joint CMC Statement (Becker, Nance) (Filed on 12/12/2007) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
27 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting (First Amended). (Hoesterey, Heather) (Filed on 1/25/2008) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
28 NOTICE of Appearance by Leslie E. Hurst and Theodore J. Pintar (Hurst, Leslie) (Filed on 1/30/2008) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
29 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 2/1/2008 before Judge Jeffrey S. White (Date Filed: 2/4/2008). (Court Reporter Lydia Zinn.) (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/4/2008) (Entered: 02/04/2008)

Case: 3:07-cv-4603 As of: 10/25/2012 07:49 PM PDT 9 of 11

02/04/2008
02/05/2008 02/28/2008 02/28/2008 03/03/2008 03/03/2008 03/10/2008 03/17/2008 03/17/2008 04/03/2008 05/27/2008 05/27/2008 05/30/2008 06/13/2008 06/20/2008 06/20/2008

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Statement due by 6/13/2008. Dispositive Motion Hearing set for 12/4/2009 09:00 AM. Class Certification Motion Hearing set for 2/13/2009 09:00 AM. Further Case Management Conference set for 6/20/2008 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2008) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
30 Joint Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora World Savings Bank. (Friedman, Andrew) (Filed on 2/5/2008) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
31 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Protective Order Regarding Confidential, Trade Secret and Private Consumer Information by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora. (Harrison, Wendy) (Filed on 2/28/2008) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
32 ORDER GRANTING 31 Stipulated Protective Order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on February 28, 2008. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2008) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
33 MOTION to Appoint Counsel and Enter Pre−Trial Order No. 1 filed by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Leticia Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Pre−trial Order No. 1)(Harrison, Wendy) (Filed on 3/3/2008) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
34 STIPULATION Regarding Electronic Discovery Protocols by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Leticia Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harrison, Wendy) (Filed on 3/3/2008) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
35 ORDER Regarding Electronic Discovery Protocols. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 3/10/08. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2008) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
36 Reply Memorandum re 33 MOTION to Appoint Counsel and Enter Pre−Trial Order No. 1 Defendant World Savings Bank's Response To Plaintiffs' Motion To Enter [Proposed] Pre−Trial Order No. 1 filed byWorld Savings Bank. (Nelson, Jack) (Filed on 3/17/2008) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
37 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report On Progress Of Development Of E−Discovery Protocol And Document Discovery Plan by World Savings Bank. (Nelson, Jack) (Filed on 3/17/2008) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
38 ORDER GRANTING 33 MOTION to Appoint Counsel and Enter Pre−Trial Order No. 1. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 4/3/08. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2008) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
39 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice−Gary Klein ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 34611019560.) filed by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2008) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
Received Document (Proposed) Order re 39 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 34611019560.) by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2008) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
40 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White granting 39 Motion for Pro Hac Vice for Gary Klein (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2008) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
41 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT / Joint Continued Case Management Conference Statement and Updated Status Report filed by World Savings Bank. (Hoesterey, Heather) (Filed on 6/13/2008) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
42 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 6/20/2008 before Judge Jeffrey S. White (Date Filed: 6/20/2008). (Court Reporter Lydia Zinn.) (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/20/2008) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Statement due by 2/6/2010. Further Case Management Conference set for 3/5/2010 09:00 AM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2008) (Entered: 06/23/2008)

Case: 3:07-cv-4603 As of: 10/25/2012 07:49 PM PDT 10 of 11

07/23/2008 11/24/2008
11/24/2008
11/24/2008
11/24/2008
11/24/2008
12/01/2008 12/02/2008 12/02/2008 12/02/2008 12/02/2008 12/02/2008 12/02/2008 12/02/2008 01/02/2009
01/30/2009 01/30/2009

43 NOTICE of Appearance by Lisa Diane Fialco on behalf of Plaintiffs (Fialco, Lisa) (Filed on 7/23/2008) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
44 MOTION of Joseph H. Meltzer for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 34611025823) filed by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2008) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
45 MOTION of Edward W. Ciolko for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 34611025823) filed by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2008) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
46 MOTION of Peter A. Muhic for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 34611025823) filed by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2008) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
47 MOTION of Donna Siegel−Moffa for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 34611025823) filed by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2008) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
48 MOTION of Joseph A. Weeden for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 210, receipt number 34611025823) filed by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(slh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2008) (Entered: 11/25/2008)
49 STIPULATION and Joint Request for Further Case Management Conference by World Savings Bank. (Hoesterey, Heather) (Filed on 12/1/2008) (Entered: 12/01/2008)
50 ORDER GRANTING 4 Joint Request for Further Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 12/2/08. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2008) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
51 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White granting 46 Motion for Pro Hac Vice for Peter A. Muhic (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2008) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
52 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White granting 47 Motion for Pro Hac Vice for Donna Siegel−Moffa (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2008) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
53 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White granting 48 Motion for Pro Hac Vice for Joseph A. Weeden (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2008) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
54 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White granting 45 Motion for Pro Hac Vice for Edward W. Ciolko (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2008) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
55 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White granting 44 Motion for Pro Hac Vice for Joseph H. Meltzer (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2008) (Entered: 12/02/2008)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Case Management Statement due by 2/13/2009. Further Case Management Conference set for 2/20/2009 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2008) (Entered: 12/03/2008)
56 Certificate of Interested Entities by World Savings Bank identifying Corporate Parent Wells Fargo &Co., Corporate Parent Wachovia Corporation, Corporate Parent Golden West Financial Corporation for World Savings Bank. (Supplemental Certification) (Hoesterey, Heather) (Filed on 1/2/2009) (Entered: 01/02/2009)
57 STIPULATION (JOINT) AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE by World Savings Bank. (Hoesterey, Heather) (Filed on 1/30/2009) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
58 ORDER GRANTING 57 Stipulation TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 1/30/09. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2009) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

Case: 3:07-cv-4603 As of: 10/25/2012 07:49 PM PDT 11 of 11

01/30/2009 02/27/2009 03/02/2009 09/10/2009 10/14/2009 10/14/2009 10/14/2009 10/14/2009 10/14/2009 10/14/2009
10/14/2009 10/14/2009 11/10/2009 11/10/2009

Set/Reset Hearings: Case Management Conference set for 3/6/2009 01:30 PM. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2009) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
59 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT (Joint) and Status Report filed by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora. (Chavez, Mark) (Filed on 2/27/2009) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
60 ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 3/2/09. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2009) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
61 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jack R. Nelson , Reed Smith, LLP (Nelson, Jack) (Filed on 9/10/2009) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
62 STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION by Wachovia Corporation, World Savings Bank. (Nelson, Jack) (Filed on 10/14/2009) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
63 Declaration of Jack R. Nelson in Support of 62 Stipulation And Request For Order Approving Settlement And Dismissing Action filed byWachovia Corporation, World Savings Bank. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 62 ) (Nelson, Jack) (Filed on 10/14/2009) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
64 Proposed Order re 62 Stipulation, 63 Declaration in Support, Approving Settlements And Dismissing Action by Wachovia Corporation, World Savings Bank. (Nelson, Jack) (Filed on 10/14/2009) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
65 Declaration of Wendy J. Harrison in Support of 62 Stipulation and Request for Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Action filed byDaniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Leticia Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A &B)(Related document(s) 62 ) (Harrison, Wendy) (Filed on 10/14/2009) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
66 MOTION to Seal Document 65 Declaration in Support, by Wendy J. Harrison of Stipulation and Request for Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Action filed by Daniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Leticia Zamora. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Harrison, Wendy) (Filed on 10/14/2009) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
67 Declaration of Wendy J. Harrison in Support of 66 MOTION to Seal Document 65 Declaration in Support, by Wendy J. Harrison of Stipulation and Request for Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Action MOTION to Seal Document 65 Declaration in Support, by Wendy J. Harrison of Stipulation and Request for Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Action filed byDaniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Leticia Zamora. (Related document(s) 66 ) (Harrison, Wendy) (Filed on 10/14/2009) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
Received Document (UNDER SEAL) Exhibits A and B by Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora. (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2009) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
70 (UNDER SEAL) EXHIBITS A and B re 65 Declaration in Support, 67 Declaration in Support filed byDaniel Perez, Elizabeth Perez, Javier Zamora, Leticia Zamora. (Related document(s) 65 , 67 ) (hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2009) (Entered: 11/12/2009)
68 ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White GRANTING 66 Motion to Seal Document. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2009) (Entered: 11/10/2009)
69 ORDER Approving 62 Stipulation re Settlements and Dismissing Action. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 10, 2009. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2009) (Entered: 11/10/2009)