Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03403/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03403-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

GAIL KILLEFER, Esq. (California Bar No. 157248) 417 Montgomery Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: 415/362-8640

Facsimile: 415/383-8545

Email: gkillefer@aol.com

Terry Smiljanich (Florida Bar No. 145359)

Jill H. Bowman (Florida Bar No. 0057304)

JAMES, HOYER, NEWCOMER & SMILJANICH, P.A.

4830 West Kennedy Blvd.

Urban Centre One, Suite 550

Tampa, FL 33609

Telephone: 813/286-4100

Facsimile: 813/286-4174

Email: tsmiljanich@jameshoyer.com jbowman@jameshoyer.com

Douglas Bowdoin (Florida Bar No. 310360)

DOUGLAS BOWDOIN, P.A.

255 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 800

Orlando, FL 32801

Telephone: 407/422-0025

Facsimile: 407/843-2448

Email: dbowdoin@bowdoinlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN C. YEAGLEY, on behalf of

himself

and those similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. C-05-3403-CRB

CLASS ACTION

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED

ORDER TO FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Case 3:05-cv-03403-CRB Document 52 Filed 10/27/06 Page 1 of 4
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

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. C-05-3403-CRB 2

Plaintiff, by and through his counsel of record and defendant Wells Fargo &

Company and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

(WFHM) hereby stipulate as follows:

1. Plaintiff contends that WFHM violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act

by sending him a mailer which did not constitute a “firm offer of credit” after

WFHM prescreened his credit history. WFHM contends that it made a firm offer

of credit and it did not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

2. Plaintiff’s remaining claim in this action seeks recovery of statutory

damages and requires a finding of a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting

Act. 

3. Plaintiff and WFHM have been engaging in informal and formal

discovery. Among other things, WFHM has produced its campaign files for the

pertinent prescreening and firm offer of credit programs. In addition, plaintiff has

taken the deposition of WFHM’s person most knowledgeable regarding

prescreening programs.

4. Through the discovery described above and Defendant’s Rule 26

statements, plaintiff has learned that WFHM has an advice of counsel defense

which could be asserted in defense to plaintiff’s claim of willfulness. Plaintiff

believes that WFHM’s advice of counsel defense should not be available or will

fail for the period from July through September, 2005. 

5. Plaintiff further believes that he is most similarly situated with other

individuals who were sent mailers by WFHM between July 12, 2005 and

September, 2005, because his mailer was sent in July, 2005. WFHM appears to

have changed its letter and practices commencing sometime after September,

2005.

6. Accordingly, plaintiff desires to amend his complaint to change the

definition of the putative class in paragraph 38 of the amended complaint to reflect

the class described therein, namely, prescreen consumers who were sent mailers by

Case 3:05-cv-03403-CRB Document 52 Filed 10/27/06 Page 2 of 4
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

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. C-05-3403-CRB 3

WFHM between July 12, 2005 and September 30, 2005. (The Amended

Complaint is attached as Exhibit A.) 

7. WFHM stipulates to the filing of plaintiff’s amended complaint at this

stage of the proceeding. 

8. The parties further stipulate that WFHM may file a new Answer to

the Amended Complaint within 10 days of service of the Court’s order granting

plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Alternatively, if WFHM elects not to

file a new Answer, the parties stipulate that defendants’ prior answer to the

original complaint shall stand as defendant’s answer to the amended complaint

without the requirement of any additional filing by defendants.

9. This stipulation is without prejudice to the rights, claims, defenses

and arguments of all parties. 

Dated: ________________, 2006 JAMES HOYER NEWCOMER &

SMILJANICH PA

By: /s/ Jill Bowman 

Jill Bowman

Counsel for Plaintiff

Steven Yeagley

Dated: _________________, 2006 SEVERSON & WERSON

A Professional Corporation

By: /s/ Michael Steiner 

Michael J. Steiner

Attorney for Defendants

Wells Fargo & Co. and

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Michael J. Steiner

SEVERSON & WERSON, P.C.

One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600

San Francisco, CA 94111

(415) 398-3344

(415) 956-0439 (Facsimile)

Case 3:05-cv-03403-CRB Document 52 Filed 10/27/06 Page 3 of 4
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

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case No. C-05-3403-CRB 4

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Amended Complaint shall be

considered filed as of the date of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ________________, 2006 _______________________________

Charles R. Breyer

United States District Court Judge

October 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:05-cv-03403-CRB Document 52 Filed 10/27/06 Page 4 of 4