Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-md-02015/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-md-02015-69/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESOLVING THE MAY 8, 2014 ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND RESOLVING THE APRIL 15, 

2015 ORDER ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT 

Case No. 3:09-MD-02015-RS 

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

Amanda L. Groves (SBN 187216) 

agroves@winston.com

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

Telephone: (415) 591-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 

T. Thomas Cottingham, III (admitted pro hac vice)

tcottingham@winston.com 

Stacie C. Knight (admitted pro hac vice)

sknight@winston.com

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

100 North Tryon Street, Suite 2900 

Charlotte, NC 28202-1078 

Telephone: (704) 350-7700 

Facsimile: (704) 350-7800 

[additional counsel listed on signature page] 

Attorneys for Defendant

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE: WACHOVIA CORP. 

“PICK-A-PAYMENT” MORTGAGE 

MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES 

LITIGATION

This document relates to: 

ALL CASES

Case No. 3:09-MD-02015-RS 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RESOLVING (1) THE MAY 8, 2014 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 

ENFORCE SETTLEMENT (DOCKET NO. 

634); (2) THE APRIL 15, 2015 ORDER ON 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT 

(DOCKET NO. 682); AND (3) ALL 

OUTSTANDING ISSUES REGARDING 

WELLS FARGO’S PERFORMANCE 

UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND 

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT OF 

CLASS ACTION

Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 6-1(b) and 6-2, Class Representative Dolores Mandrigues 

(“Class Representative”), Class Counsel, Berns Weiss, LLP (“Class Counsel”), and Defendant Wells 

Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) (collectively, the “Parties”) stipulate as follows: 

1. On December 11, 2013, Class Representative filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement 

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 729 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESOLVING THE MAY 8, 2014 ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, THE APRIL 15, 2015 ORDER ON 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES REGARDING WELLS FARGO’S 

PERFORMANCE UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Case No. 3:09-MD-02015-RS 

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

Agreement (the “December 11, 2013 Motion to Enforce”), arguing, inter alia, that (1) Wells Fargo 

was required to consider net (i.e., “after tax”) income, rather than gross (i.e., “pre-tax”) income, in 

making imminent default determinations; (2) the five imminent default “Financial Hardship” factors 

listed in the Settlement Class B Notice were not exclusive, but were only examples; (3) Wells Fargo 

improperly “screened” Settlement Class Members by refusing to send loan modification applications 

to Settlement Class Members who, during their initial loan modification interview, refused to agree 

to the establishment of an escrow account or whose stated gross monthly income was already above 

or below certain thresholds; (4) Wells Fargo improperly denied Settlement Class Members for loan 

modifications due to their alleged failure to provide requested documents where the documents were 

either provided or were never requested (the “fall-out argument”); and (5) members of Settlement 

Class A who had inadvertently received (a) a Settlement Class A Notice and (b) either a Settlement 

Class B or Settlement Class C Notice, were entitled to apply for loan modifications (the “dualnotice” argument). (Dkt. No. 593). 

2. On January 20, 2014 , Class Representative filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement 

Agreement (the “January 20, 2014 Motion to Enforce”), which raised the same issues as the 

December 11, 2013 Motion to Enforce, except that it omitted the fall-out argument (Dkt. No. 604). 

3. On May 8, 2014, the Court entered its Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 

Motion to Enforce Settlement (the “May 8, 2014 Order”). (Dkt. No. 634). 

4. In the May 8, 2014 Order, the Court instructed the parties to meet and confer and to 

submit a joint statement “as to their planned course of action in light of th[e] decision.” (Dkt. No. 

634).

5. On March 3, 2015, certain Settlement Class Members, on behalf of themselves and 

the remaining Settlement Class Members (the “Movants”), filed an Ex Parte Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re: Motion for Preliminary Injunction and to Enforce 

Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “March 3, 2015 Motion for Preliminary Injunction”), 

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 729 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESOLVING THE MAY 8, 2014 ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, THE APRIL 15, 2015 ORDER ON 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES REGARDING WELLS FARGO’S 

PERFORMANCE UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Case No. 3:09-MD-02015-RS 

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

seeking an order preventing Wells Fargo from “foreclosing, selling, attempting to sell through public 

sale or otherwise, or evicting Settlement Class Members or their families from, any home that is a 

Settlement Class B or Class C Member’s primary residence, where that Class Member applied for a 

loan modification pursuant to the Settlement Agreement but was denied for failure to meet imminent 

default criteria and/or failure to document a financial hardship.” (Dkt. No. 665). 

6. On March 4, 2015, the Court denied the temporary restraining order. (Dkt. No. 667). 

7. On April 15, 2015, the Court entered its Order on Motion to Enforce Settlement (the 

“April 15, 2015 Order”). (Docket No. 682). 

8. In the April 15, 2015 Order, the Court found, inter alia, that “Wells Fargo breached 

the settlement in agreement in at least two ways. First, it violated the agreement by failing to 

establish and apply equally across the class uniform written standards for its ‘major change in 

circumstances’ test. Second, it breached the agreement by applying a DTI threshold based on 

borrowers’ minimum monthly payments in evaluating MAP2R applicants for imminent default.” 

(Dkt. No. 682). 

9. In the April 15, 2015 Order, the Court instructed the parties to “develop a joint 

proposal for remediation of the violations described above” and to submit that proposal within two 

weeks. (Dkt. No. 682).

10. On April 20, 2015, in light of the Parties’ representation that they were “conducting 

settlement negotiations that, if successful, [would] result in a settlement of the issues raised in the 

April 15, 2015 Order, as well as other issues,” the Court entered an Order Adjourning Deadlines 

Contained in the April 15, 2015 Order (the “April 20, 2015 Order”). (Dkt. No. 684). The April 20, 

2015 Order adjourned the deadlines contained in the April 15, 2015 Order indefinitely, but allowed 

the Parties to notify the Court if their settlement negotiations reached an impasse, at which point the 

deadlines in the April 15, 2015 order would be reinstated. (Dkt. No. 684).

11. Wells Fargo disputes the Court’s conclusions in the April 15, 2015 Order that it 

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 729 Filed 12/07/15 Page 3 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESOLVING THE MAY 8, 2014 ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, THE APRIL 15, 2015 ORDER ON 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES REGARDING WELLS FARGO’S 

PERFORMANCE UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Case No. 3:09-MD-02015-RS 

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

violated the Class Action Settlement Agreement. 

12. Class Representative disputes the Court’s conclusion in the April 15, 2015 Order that 

the Movants “had not demonstrated that they are entitled to any relief.” 

13. Class Representative and Wells Fargo have appealed the April 15, 2015 Order by 

filing Notices of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Dkt. Nos. 685 

and 691). 

14. Class Representative, Class Counsel, and Wells Fargo have agreed on a proposal for 

“remediation of the violations” found by the Court in the May 8, 2014 Order and the April 15, 2015 

Order, and have entered into a separate Settlement Agreement dated October __, 2015 (the 

“Settlement Agreement”), the terms of which are outlined below. 

15. Specifically, the Parties have agreed that “Included Class Members” will be entitled 

to relief as described herein.

16. “Included Class Members” is comprised of the following: 

a. All Settlement Class B Members and Settlement Class C Members who were 

denied a loan modification for failure to meet the imminent default requirements in effect 

during the Class Period or failure to document a financial hardship during the Class Period, 

did not later reapply, and still have a Pick-a-Payment loan. 

b. All Settlement Class B and Settlement Class C Members who were denied a 

loan modification for failure to meet the imminent default requirements in effect during the 

Class Period or failure to document a financial hardship during the Class Period, later 

reapplied, were again denied for failure to meet the imminent default requirements or failure 

to document a financial hardship, or otherwise did not receive an underwriting determination 

based on a HAMP or MAP2R waterfall, and still have a Pick-a-Payment loan. 

c. All Settlement Class B Members and Settlement Class C Members who were 

“screened out” by the escrow screen or the income-too-high screen during the Class Period 

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 729 Filed 12/07/15 Page 4 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESOLVING THE MAY 8, 2014 ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, THE APRIL 15, 2015 ORDER ON 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES REGARDING WELLS FARGO’S 

PERFORMANCE UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Case No. 3:09-MD-02015-RS 

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

and who did not later reapply and still have a Pick-a-Payment loan. 

d. All Settlement Class B Members and Settlement Class C Members who were 

“screened out” by the escrow screen or the income-too-high screen during the Class Period, 

did not later make it past the escrow screen or the income-too-high screen, and still have a 

Pick-a-Payment loan. 

e. All Settlement Class B Members and Settlement Class C Members who were 

denied a loan modification for failure to meet the imminent default requirements in effect 

during the Class Period or failure to document a financial hardship during the Class Period, 

did not later reapply, and for whom the property securing their Pick-a-Payment loan has 

since been sold at a Foreclosure Sale.1

f. All Settlement Class B and Settlement Class C Members who were denied a 

loan modification for failure to meet the imminent default requirements in effect during the 

Class Period or failure to document a financial hardship during the Class Period, later 

reapplied, were again denied for failure to meet the imminent default requirements or failure 

to document a financial hardship, or otherwise did not receive an underwriting determination 

based on a HAMP or MAP2R waterfall, and for whom the property securing their Pick-aPayment loan has since been sold at a Foreclosure Sale. 

g. All Settlement Class B Members and Settlement Class C Members who were 

screened out by the escrow screen or the income-too-high screen during the Class Period and 

who did not later reapply, and for whom the property securing their Pick-a-Payment loan has 

since been sold at a Foreclosure Sale. 

h. All Settlement Class B Members and Settlement Class C Members who were 

screened out by the escrow screen or the income-too-high screen during the Class Period, did 

1

 “Foreclosure Sale” means that the property securing the Pick-a-Payment loan has been sold at 

foreclosure in order to satisfy the outstanding loan. This term includes foreclosure by judicial sale, 

otherwise known as judicial foreclosure sale, and foreclosure by power of sale, also known as 

nonjudicial foreclosure sale. 

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 729 Filed 12/07/15 Page 5 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESOLVING THE MAY 8, 2014 ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, THE APRIL 15, 2015 ORDER ON 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES REGARDING WELLS FARGO’S 

PERFORMANCE UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Case No. 3:09-MD-02015-RS 

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

not later make it past the escrow screen or the income-too-high screen, and for whom the 

property securing their Pick-a-Payment loan has since been sold at a Foreclosure Sale. 

i. Additional Settlement Class Members whom Class Counsel contends may be 

entitled to relief and whose loan within the Settlement Class is still active. 

j. Additional Settlement Class Members whom Class Counsel contends may be 

entitled to relief and whose loan within the Settlement Class is no longer active. 

k. Any Settlement Class B Member or Settlement Class C Member who meets 

one of the definitions set forth in Paragraphs 16.a. through 16.h., and who, within 90 days of 

the date of the first mailing to any Included Class Member (as referenced in Paragraph 20), 

claims (either personally or through Class Counsel) that he or she did not receive notice or 

otherwise was not informed of the settlement benefits provided herein. In that event, 

Paragraph 24 of this Joint Stipulation shall apply.

17. Included Class Members who still have their Pick-a-Payment loans or whose loans 

within the Settlement Class are still active will be allowed to contact Wells Fargo to reapply for a 

loan modification, based on their current situations. Class Counsel has reviewed the imminent 

default test that will apply to Included Class Members who still have their Pick-a-Payment loans and 

agrees that it complies with the instructions in the April 15, 2015 Order or is otherwise acceptable. 

18. Included Class Members who still have their Pick-a-Payment loans or whose loans 

within the Settlement Class are still active and who contact Wells Fargo to reapply for loan 

modifications will, if eligible for HAMP, first be evaluated for a loan modifications under HAMP. 

If the Included Class Member is not eligible for HAMP or does not qualify for HAMP, then he/she 

will be evaluated for a loan modification under Wells Fargo’s proprietary loan modification 

program, “PSR,” which provides opportunities for interest rate reductions, principal forbearance and 

forgiveness, and term extensions. Class Counsel has reviewed the PSR program and agrees that it is 

acceptable. 

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 729 Filed 12/07/15 Page 6 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESOLVING THE MAY 8, 2014 ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, THE APRIL 15, 2015 ORDER ON 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES REGARDING WELLS FARGO’S 

PERFORMANCE UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Case No. 3:09-MD-02015-RS 

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

19. Wells Fargo will not “screen out” Included Class Members for willingness to 

establish an escrow account or for income at the beginning of the evaluation, but Included Class 

Members must agree to the establishment of an escrow account and provide proof of income (in 

accordance with HAMP and Wells Fargo’s policies and procedures) before final approval of a loan 

modification pursuant to this Joint Stipulation and the Parties’ separate Settlement Agreement. 

Wells Fargo shall be permitted to establish an escrow account at the beginning of the evaluation for 

purposes of calculating escrow amounts for inclusion in the modified monthly payment, but an 

Included Class Member will not be required to pay any escrow amounts until Wells Fargo has 

rendered a decision on the Included Class Member’s loan modification application made pursuant to 

this Joint Stipulation and the Parties’ Separate Settlement Agreement. If Wells Fargo has paid the 

Included Class Member’s taxes, insurance, or other escrow items, then Wells Fargo may require the 

Included Class Member to pay those amounts at any time, subject to the provisions of the Settlement 

Agreement. Finally, if the Included Class Member already has an escrow account at the time he or 

she contacts Wells Fargo to apply for a loan modification pursuant to this Joint Stipulation and the 

Parties’ separate Settlement Agreement, then that account shall remain and the Included Class 

Member must continue to make monthly escrow payments. 

20. Included Class Members who still have their Pick-a-Payment loans will have 90 

calendar days to contact Wells Fargo to reapply for a loan modification pursuant to this Joint 

Stipulation. Included Class Members will be notified of the opportunity to reapply for a loan 

modification via two mailings, which will be handled by third-party administrator, Rust Consulting, 

Inc. (“Rust”). At the conclusion of the 90-day period, Wells Fargo shall have no obligation to allow 

any Included Class Members to apply for loan modifications under this Joint Stipulation. 

21. The Parties also have agreed on an “opt-in” procedure for Included Class Members 

who no longer have their Pick-a-Payment loans according to the criteria set forth in Paragraphs 16.e., 

16.f., 16.g., 16.h., and 16.j. above. Settlement Class Members meeting these criteria will be notified 

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 729 Filed 12/07/15 Page 7 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESOLVING THE MAY 8, 2014 ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, THE APRIL 15, 2015 ORDER ON 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES REGARDING WELLS FARGO’S 

PERFORMANCE UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Case No. 3:09-MD-02015-RS 

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

of this “opt-in” procedure via a mailing handled by third-party administrator, Rust. 

22. If a Settlement Class Member meeting the criteria described in Paragraphs 16.e., 

16.f., 16.g., 16.h., and 16.j. above opts-in, Class Counsel and Wells Fargo will review that 

Settlement Class Member’s file and discuss a resolution, if appropriate. If Class Counsel and Wells 

Fargo cannot agree to a resolution of that Settlement Class Member’s dispute, the parties will submit 

their dispute to mandatory mediation. If the parties are not able to resolve their dispute via 

mediation, then the Settlement Class Member shall have all rights to which he or she is entitled at 

law.

23. If a Settlement Class Member meeting the criteria described in Paragraph 22 does not 

opt-in, Class Counsel and Wells Fargo will not consider that Settlement Class Member for a 

resolution of his or her loan modification denial or foreclosure, and Class Counsel will take no 

further action with respect to that Settlement Class Member. 

24. The Parties expressly acknowledge and agree that they have made reasonable, best 

efforts to identify all Included Class Members. As provided in Paragraph 16.k., if, within 90 days of 

the date of the first mailing to any Included Class Member (as referenced in Paragraph 20), a 

Settlement Class Member (either personally or through Class Counsel) notifies Wells Fargo that he 

or she meets one of the definitions in Paragraph 16.a. through 16.h., but did not receive notice or 

otherwise was not informed of the Settlement Benefits provided herein and in the Parties’ separate 

Settlement Agreement, the Parties will investigate whether that Settlement Class Member meets one 

of the definitions of Included Class Member as set forth in Paragraphs 16.a. through 16.h. If, after 

that investigation, the Parties determine that the Settlement Class Member meets one of the 

definitions of Included Class Member as set forth in Paragraphs 16.a through 16.h. but inadvertently 

did not receive notice or otherwise was not informed of the Settlement Benefits provided herein and 

in the Parties’ separate Settlement Agreement, then he or she shall be entitled to the Settlement 

Benefits described herein and in the Parties’ separate Settlement Agreement. If, after that 

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 729 Filed 12/07/15 Page 8 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESOLVING THE MAY 8, 2014 ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, THE APRIL 15, 2015 ORDER ON 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES REGARDING WELLS FARGO’S 

PERFORMANCE UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Case No. 3:09-MD-02015-RS 

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

investigation, the Parties determine that the Settlement Class Member does not meet one of the 

definitions of Included Class Member as set forth in Paragraphs 16.a through 16.h., then the Parties 

have no obligation to take any further action with respect to that Settlement Class Member. In 

addition, if the Settlement Class Member does not make any such claim within 90 days of the date of 

the first mailing to any Included Class Member (as referenced in Paragraph 20), then Wells Fargo 

will have no obligation to take any further action with respect to that Settlement Class Member. 

25. Included Class Members will not be required to execute a release or to otherwise 

release their claims against Wells Fargo to receive the relief described herein.

26. Wells Fargo shall pay all fees and expenses incurred by Rust in assisting with the 

relief provided by this Joint Stipulation.

27. While Wells Fargo continues to dispute that it breached the Class Action Settlement 

Agreement, Wells Fargo recognizes that Class Counsel has incurred substantial fees and out-ofpocket expenses in bringing the motions described herein and in bringing other motions before the 

Court, and that Class Counsel will continue to incur fees and expenses. Accordingly, on or before 

January 18, 2016, Class Counsel shall submit a summary invoice to Wells Fargo for all time and outof-pocket expenses Class Counsel has incurred from December 10, 2010 through January 15, 2016 

that resulted from, arose out of, or in any way are connected with the investigation and litigation of 

the motions described herein and/or any other motions brought before the Court since December 10, 

2010, the Class Action Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Agreement, this Joint Stipulation, 

and/or the relief described in the Settlement Agreement and/or Joint Stipulation, and for all time and 

out-of-pocket expenses Class Counsel expects to incur in the future as a result of, arising out of, or in 

any way connected with the Class Action Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Agreement, this 

Joint Stipulation, and/or the relief described in the Settlement Agreement or this Joint Stipulation.

Wells Fargo shall pay those fees and expenses shown on the invoice, subject to a maximum, agreed 

amount. 

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 729 Filed 12/07/15 Page 9 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESOLVING THE MAY 8, 2014 ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, THE APRIL 15, 2015 ORDER ON 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES REGARDING WELLS FARGO’S 

PERFORMANCE UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Case No. 3:09-MD-02015-RS 

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

28. Class Counsel’s execution of this Agreement constitutes its assurance and 

representation that it has investigated all of the potential class-wide claims that Settlement Class 

Members have reported to it and all potential claims class-wide claims it has discovered, and that 

this Agreement is a fair compromise of those potential class-wide claims. 

29. Within 5 calendar days of an order entering this Joint Stipulation, the Parties will 

voluntarily dismiss all pending appeals, including but not limited to the following appeals pending in 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: 14-16304, 15-15997, and 15-16071. 

Dated: October 23, 2015. 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

By: /s/ T. Thomas Cottingham, III ________________ 

T. Thomas Cottingham, III (admitted pro hac vice) 

Stacie C. Knight (admitted pro hac vice) 

100 North Tryon Street, Suite 2900 

Charlotte, NC 28202-1078 

Telephone: (704) 350-7700 

Facsimile: (704) 350 7800 

Amanda L. Groves (SBN: 187216) 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

Telephone: (415) 591-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 729 Filed 12/07/15 Page 10 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESOLVING THE MAY 8, 2014 ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, THE APRIL 15, 2015 ORDER ON 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES REGARDING WELLS FARGO’S 

PERFORMANCE UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Case No. 3:09-MD-02015-RS 

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

Additional Counsel for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.: 

Robert T. Mowrey (admitted pro hac vice)

rmowrey@lockelord.com 

Jason L. Sanders (SBN 230245) 

jsanders@lockelord.com

Johnathan E. Collins (admitted pro hac vice)

jcollins@lockelord.com 

LOCKE LORD LLP 

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Telephone: (214) 740-8000 

Facsimile: (214) 240-8800 

J. McClendon (SBN 184669) 

rmcclendon@lockelord.com 

Jonathan Lieberman (SBN 278058) 

jlieberman@lockelord.com 

LOCKE LORD LLP 

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 4100 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 318-8810 

Facsimile: (415) 676-5816 

Mark T. Flewelling (SBN 96465) 

mflewelling@afrct.com 

Yaw-Jiun (Gene) Wu (SBN 228420) 

gwu@afrct.com

Leigh O. Curran (SBN 173322) 

lcurran@afrct.com 

ANGLIN, FLEWELLING, RASMUSSEN, 

CAMPBELL & TRYTTEN, LLP 

199 So. Los Robles Ave., Suite 600 

Pasadena, CA 91101 

Telephone: (626) 535-1900 

Facsimile: (626) 577-7764 

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 729 Filed 12/07/15 Page 11 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESOLVING THE MAY 8, 2014 ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, THE APRIL 15, 2015 ORDER ON 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES REGARDING WELLS FARGO’S 

PERFORMANCE UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Case No. 3:09-MD-02015-RS 

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

BERNS WEISS LLP 

/s/ Jeffrey K. Berns ________________ 

Jeffrey K. Berns (SBN 131351) 

jberns@law111.com 

20700 Ventura Blvd., Suite 140 

Woodland Hills, CA 91364 

Telephone: (818) 961-2000 

Facsimile: (818) 999-1500 

Lee A. Weiss (admitted pro hac vice)

lweiss@bernsweiss.com

585 Stewart Avenue, Suite L-20 

Garden City, NY 11530 

Telephone: (818) 961-2000 

Facsimile: (818) 999-1500 

ATTORNEYS FOR CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, 

MOVANTS, AND THE SETTLEMENT CLASS 

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 729 Filed 12/07/15 Page 12 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESOLVING THE MAY 8, 2014 ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, THE APRIL 15, 2015 ORDER ON 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES REGARDING WELLS FARGO’S 

PERFORMANCE UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Case No. 3:09-MD-02015-RS 

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

ECF CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filing attorney attests that he has obtained concurrence 

regarding the filing of this document from the signatories to the document. 

Dated: October 23, 2015 /s/ T. Thomas Cottingham, III 

T. Thomas Cottingham, III 

(admitted pro hac vice) 

tcottingham@winston.com 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

100 North Tryon Street, Suite 2900 

 Charlotte, NC 28202-1078 

Telephone: (704) 350-7700 

Facsimile: (704) 350 7800 

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 729 Filed 12/07/15 Page 13 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESOLVING THE MAY 8, 2014 ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, THE APRIL 15, 2015 ORDER ON 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES REGARDING WELLS FARGO’S 

PERFORMANCE UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Case No. 3:09-MD-02015-RS 

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulated request of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the May 8, 

2014 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 

634), the April 15, 2015 Order on Motion to Enforce Settlement (Dkt. No. 682, and all outstanding 

issues regarding Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s performance under the Agreement and Stipulation of 

Class Action Settlement are hereby fully and finally resolved on the terms set forth in the Joint 

Stipulation.

IT IS SO ORDERED,

Date:______________, 2015 _________________________________ 

HON. RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

12/7

Case 3:09-md-02015-RS Document 729 Filed 12/07/15 Page 14 of 14