Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05923/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05923-51/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERONICA GUTIERREZ, ERIN

WALKER, and WILLIAM SMITH, as

individuals and on behalf of all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., and 

DOES 1 through 125,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-05923 WHA

CLASS ACTION

AMENDED ORDER REGARDING

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF

FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF

LAW AFTER BENCH TRIAL

As agreed upon by the parties, by NOON ON MAY 19, both sides shall file proposed

findings of fact, each identified by number. Each proposed finding should be concise and

limited to one or two or (at most) three lines of text (exclusive of any block quotes from trial

exhibits) followed by exact trial record cites fully supporting the proposed finding. The

proposals should be at a level of specificity/generality so as to fit within the page limit set forth

below. As a rule of thumb, less controverted subjects may be captured in more generalized

proposed findings; more controversial subjects, however, usually require greater specificity and

more proposed findings. Block quotes and record cites may be single-spaced (and indented) but

otherwise the proposals should be double-spaced. Example: 

Case 3:07-cv-05923-WHA Document 440 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1. When defendant went through the intersection of

Hayes and Gough, the light was red in his direction. 

Jones at RT 97:1–3

Young at RT 15:11–12

The same submission should also set forth each proposed conclusion of law. Each

proposed conclusion of law must briefly identify the proposed findings of fact supporting the

conclusion and the legal authority therefor (quoting the key language of said authority). The

overall length of the submission must be 35 pages or less. 

By NOON ON MAY 25, the opposing side must file and serve a response. The response

must state, separately as to each proposed finding, whether the responding party agrees with the

proposed finding and if not in full agreement, then the full extent to which, considering the duty

of good faith and candor, the responding party admits the proposed finding. To the extent that

the responding side objects in any respect to the proposed finding, it must state (i) the extent to

which the opposition is based on a failure of the record cites to support the proposal (explaining

why they do not support it) and (ii) the extent to which the objection is based on contrary

evidence (citing the contrary evidence) or lack of credibility (citing relevant evidence). 

Example: 

1. Agree that the light was red but the light had just

changed a split second before. 

Mack RT 42:17–18

The submission shall similarly state the extent to which the responding party agrees with

each conclusion of law proposed by the other side. If there is any disagreement, the responding

side must state (i) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the supporting

findings, (ii) the extent to which the disagreement is based on a failure of the cited authorities to

support the conclusion, and (iii) the extent to which contrary authorities contradict the legal

basis for the proposed conclusion. 

Case 3:07-cv-05923-WHA Document 440 Filed 05/07/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The responding submission should reproduce each original finding or conclusion and

then, immediately after each, supply the responsive information. It may not exceed twice the

overall number of pages used by the submission to which it responds. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05923-WHA Document 440 Filed 05/07/10 Page 3 of 3