Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03403/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03403-18/pdf.json

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

---

- 1 -

07725/0070/633225.3 [Proposed] Order Approving Settlement

Case No.: C-05-3403-CRB

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

Michael J. Steiner (State Bar No. 112079)

mjs@severson.com

Donald J. Querio (State Bar No. 54367)

djq@severson.com

Joshua E. Whitehair (State Bar No. 244900)

jew@severson.com

SEVERSON & WERSON

A Professional Corporation

One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 398-3344

Facsimile: (415) 956-0439

Attorneys for Defendants

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and 

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, a 

division of WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

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.

Case No.: C-05-3403-CRB

[PROPOSED] ORDER FINALLY 

APPROVING CLASS SETTLEMENT

The motion of Plaintiff Stephen C. Yeagley (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of a 

class of persons, for Final Approval of a Class Action Settlement Agreement and for Final 

Judgment and Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs came on for hearing on June 29, 2007, before 

the Honorable Charles R. Breyer, Judge of the above-entitled court. Terry Smiljanich, of James 

Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A. and Douglas Bowdoin and Gail Killefer appeared on 

behalf of Plaintiff. Donald J. Querio and Michael J. Steiner of Severson & Werson, P.C.,

appeared on behalf of Defendants Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank (collectively 

“Defendants”). Darrell Palmer appeared for unnamed class member and objector Rose A.

Case 3:05-cv-03403-CRB Document 142 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 9
- 2 -

07725/0070/633225.3 [Proposed] Order Approving Settlement

Case No.: C-05-3403-CRB

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

Munoz. Robert C. Chojnacki appeared for unnamed class member and objector Michael L. 

Broughton.

I.

FINDINGS

Based on the oral and written argument and evidence presented in connection with the 

motion, and having provided the Class Members with the opportunity to object, the Court makes 

the following findings of fact:

A. Class Certification

1. The Settlement Class is ascertainable and appropriate for certification under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23; 

2. There are approximately 3.8 million members of the Settlement Class. It is 

impracticable to join all of them as parties to the Action.

3. Common questions of law and fact predominate and are applicable to the 

Settlement Class. The predominant common questions include: Whether the proposed settlement 

is fair, just, equitable and in the best interest of class members given the relative risks and benefits 

of proceeding to trial; whether Defendants made firms offers of credit to the Settlement Class; 

whether Defendants acted willfully within the meaning of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

4. Plaintiff has a claim typical of members of the Settlement Class. Wells Fargo 

Home Mortgage obtained or used Plaintiff’s credit profile in connection with sending a mailer to 

him. Between July 12, 2005 and September 30, 2005, Plaintiff received a mailer from Wells 

Fargo Home Mortgage indicating that he had been pre-approved for a real estate loan based on 

information in his credit profile. Plaintiff did not apply for nor receive a loan in response to the 

mailer. Plaintiff alleges that the mailer does not constitute a “firm offer of credit” as required by 

the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and, thus, Defendants 

allegedly accessed his credit profile without a permissible purpose.

5. Plaintiff has acted diligently on behalf of class members, undertaking discovery, 

preparing the case for trial, and crafting a settlement that extends benefits to members of the 

Case 3:05-cv-03403-CRB Document 142 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 9
- 3 -

07725/0070/633225.3 [Proposed] Order Approving Settlement

Case No.: C-05-3403-CRB

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

proposed settlement class. Plaintiff is and has been an adequate representative of the Settlement

Class.

6. Certification of the Settlement Class benefits the litigants and the Court. 

Certification permits approval of the Settlement Agreement, avoiding a potentially expensive, 

time-consuming, and risky trial. Class certification allows redress to all class members, whom 

Plaintiff claims are aggrieved by Defendants’ actions. Settlement of the case on a class basis 

permits entry of a judgment binding on class members, thereby avoiding repetitious litigation. 

Settlement on a class basis is manageable.

7. Class certification is the superior means of proceeding with this Action since 

(a) the settlement is contingent on class certification, (b) certification permits entry of a judgment 

binding on the class and (c) Defendants have agreed to bear the cost of class notice and claims 

administration occasioned by class certification.

B. Class Notice

8. The Court previously approved the form of class notice and the proposed manner 

of its distribution to class members. (Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, ¶ 8.)

9. The Court again finds that the notice fairly and adequately informed class 

members of the nature of the Action, the terms of the proposed settlement, the proposed release of 

claims, and class members’ rights to participate in the Action and settlement, to exclude themselves from the Action or to object to the proposed settlement.

10. In compliance with the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, class notice 

was mailed to class members at their last known addresses by May 23, 2007, as updated by the 

National Change of Address Disclosure. Mailing of class notice and claim form to class members

at their last known addresses was the best notice practicable under the circumstances and was 

reasonably calculated to communicate actual notice of the litigation and the proposed settlement 

to members of the Settlement Class.

11. The deadline for opting out, objecting or intervening was June 8, 2007. There was 

an adequate interval between notice and deadline to permit class members to choose what to do 

Case 3:05-cv-03403-CRB Document 142 Filed 07/23/07 Page 3 of 9
- 4 -

07725/0070/633225.3 [Proposed] Order Approving Settlement

Case No.: C-05-3403-CRB

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

and act on their decision. 448 Class Members opted out of the Settlement and 25 Class Members 

filed or served objections. 

C. Fairness of the Settlement

12. The Settlement Agreement is entitled to a presumption of fairness. 

a. The settlement was reached through arm’s-length bargaining between the 

parties, before a mediator, United States District Court Judge Fern Smith (Ret), in the 

office of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service. There has been no collusion 

between the parties in reaching the proposed settlement.

b. Before entering into the settlement, the parties engaged in sufficient 

investigation and discovery regarding the claims Plaintiff alleged to allow counsel to act 

knowledgeably in negotiating the settlement and to allow the Court to act intelligently in 

weighing its fairness. 

c. Counsel for both parties are experienced in similar consumer class action 

litigation. All counsel recommended approval of the Settlement Agreement and Release.

d. Approximately 3.8 million class notices were mailed, and 25 objections 

were received. The gist of the objections is that the class compensation is insufficient and 

the attorneys’ fees excessive. The Court has carefully considered the objections to the 

class settlement and has found them to be without merit. The Settlement Class’ potential 

recovery depends upon a finding of willfulness. Following the Supreme Court’s decision 

in Safeco Ins. Co. of America v Burr, U.S. , 127 S. Ct. 2201 (2007) plaintiff’s 

chances of prevailing on the issue of willfulness are diminished. Accordingly, the Court 

finds that the class compensation is reasonable. The Court’s role is not to determine 

whether other terms of settlement might be preferable but whether those which the parties 

reached are fair and reasonable and in the class’ best interests. The Court will address 

attorneys’ fees and costs, and the objectors’ objections to fees, at a later time.

e. Two class members requested to intervene. Ms. Munoz’s request to 

intervene was conditional and intervention is not necessary to preserve her right to object 

Case 3:05-cv-03403-CRB Document 142 Filed 07/23/07 Page 4 of 9
- 5 -

07725/0070/633225.3 [Proposed] Order Approving Settlement

Case No.: C-05-3403-CRB

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

or appeal. Mr. O’Dell’s request to intervene attempts to insert superfluous matters into 

the litigation. 

13. The consideration to be given to the Settlement Class under the terms of the Settlement Agreement is reasonable considering the relative strengths and weaknesses of the claims 

asserted in this Action and is fair, reasonable and adequate compensation for the dismissal of this 

action and release of class members’ claims, given the uncertainties and risks of the litigation and 

the delays which would ensue from continued prosecution of the Action. 

14. The proposed Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable and in the 

best interests of the Settlement Class and its members.

D. Adequacy of Representation By Counsel

15. At all times in the prosecution of this action, the negotiation of the settlement and 

its presentation to the Court, the Settlement Class has been adequately represented by:

Terry A. Smiljanich

Jill H. Bowman

JAMES HOYER NEWCOMER 

 & SMILJANICH, P.A.

4830 West Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 550

Tampa, FL 33609

Douglas Bowdoin

DOUGLAS BOWDOIN, P.A.

255 South Orange Avenue, Suite 800

Orlando, FL 32801

Gail Killefer

417 Montgomery Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, CA 94104

W. Roderick Bowdoin

DARBY, PEELE, BOWDOIN & PAYNE

P. O. Drawer 1707

Lake City, FL 32056

J. Craig Bourne

LAW OFFICES OF J. CRAIG BOURNE

1520 East Livingston Street

Orlando, FL 32803

Class Counsel has extensive experience in class actions and has adequately represented 

and protected the interests of the Settlement Class in the Action and in negotiating the settlement. 

Case 3:05-cv-03403-CRB Document 142 Filed 07/23/07 Page 5 of 9
- 6 -

07725/0070/633225.3 [Proposed] Order Approving Settlement

Case No.: C-05-3403-CRB

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

E. Attorneys’ Fees

16. The Settlement Agreement provides for payment of attorneys’ fees and costs by 

Defendants to class counsel, subject to approval by the Court, pursuant to paragraphs 3.23 -3.26 

of the Settlement Agreement. The Court will rule on plaintiff’s request for approval of the 

attorneys’ fees and costs at a later time. 

F. Compliance With the Class Action Fairness Act

17. Defendants sent notice to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) as 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715(a) & (b). The Court is entering Final Judgment more than ninety 

days after the OCC were served with notice, as is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715(d). The OCC has 

not objected to the Settlement.

II.

ORDERS

Based on the foregoing findings, and good cause appearing:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 

18. The Settlement Class is certified as a final and permanent class for purposes of this 

action. The Settlement Class is hereby defined to include:

All individuals throughout the United States whose consumer 

reports were obtained or used by Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a 

division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in connection with a real estate 

secured credit transaction not initiated by them and to whom Wells 

Fargo sent or caused to be sent during the period of July 12, 2005, 

through September 30, 2005, a mailer similar to the mailer attached 

to the Amended Complaint as Exhibits A and B, and who did not 

apply for and receive a loan in response to the mailer.

19. The Settlement Class is appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3). The class 

claims are those set forth in the amended complaint and the defenses to the class claims are set 

forth in Defendants’ Answer. The attorneys named in paragraph 15 are appointed as Class 

counsel for the Settlement Class. 

20. The provisions for Notice to the Settlement Class satisfied the requirements of 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2)(B) and due process.

Case 3:05-cv-03403-CRB Document 142 Filed 07/23/07 Page 6 of 9
- 7 -

07725/0070/633225.3 [Proposed] Order Approving Settlement

Case No.: C-05-3403-CRB

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

21. The Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the 

Settlement Class, including the following provisions:

a. Defendants will pay the costs of mailing each member of the Settlement Class a 

brochure explaining the importance of class members obtaining his or her credit report 

and explaining his or her rights under the FCRA;

b. Defendants will pay the costs of providing to each member of the Settlement Class 

who submits a valid claim form a copy of his or her credit report and credit score; and

c. Defendants will pay the costs of providing to each member of the Settlement Class 

who submits a second valid claim form a subsequent copy of his or her credit report and 

credit score. 

d. Defendants will pay the costs of offering each member of the Settlement Class a 

$50 rebate on a new first mortgage loan from Wells Fargo, provided the Settlement Class 

member applies, meets current loan underwriting guidelines and obtains a loan by the end 

of 2007.

e. Defendants will pay attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel, subject to Court 

approval, pursuant to paragraphs 3.23-3.26 of the Settlement Agreement. 

22. The objections to the class settlement are overruled for the reasons set forth above. 

The requests to intervene are denied for the reasons set forth above. 

23. The Court will address Plaintiff’s request for approval of attorneys’ fees and costs 

and the objections thereto after the close of the claims period. By August 15, 2007, plaintiff shall 

file a written declaration of the claims administrator setting forth the total number of claims 

submitted. Also by August 15, 2007, any interested person may, but is not required to, submit 

supplemental briefing or other material regarding attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court’s present 

intention is to enter a single final judgment after ruling on the attorneys’ fees and costs motion. 

24. All Settlement Class members who did not timely and properly exclude him or 

herself from the Settlement Class, and all those who claim through them or who assert claims (or 

could assert claims) on their behalf (collectively, the “Class Releasing Parties”) do hereby 

unconditionally and irrevocably remise, release, and discharge Defendants, together with all of 

Case 3:05-cv-03403-CRB Document 142 Filed 07/23/07 Page 7 of 9
- 8 -

07725/0070/633225.3 [Proposed] Order Approving Settlement

Case No.: C-05-3403-CRB

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

their present and former parents, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, assigns, affiliates, 

divisions, owners, shareholders, officers, directors, attorneys, insurers, vendors, accountants, 

agents (alleged or actual), representatives, and employees (collectively as “Released Parties”), 

from any and all claims, of whatever kind or character, direct or indirect, whether known or 

unknown or capable of being known as of the date hereof, whether existing now or to come into 

existence in the future, arising at law or in equity, by a right of action or otherwise, whether or not 

they were asserted or could have been asserted in the Action, which the Class Releasing Parties or 

any of them have, may have, or may come to have, individually or as members of a class, against 

Defendants based on, arising out of, or in any way relating or pertaining to: (a) all claims that 

were asserted or attempted to be asserted in the Action; (b) Defendants’ accessing or obtaining of 

consumer credit reports or consumer credit information in connection with making firm offers of 

credit or Prescreening; or (c) Defendants’ alleged failure to comply with the requirements of the 

FCRA relating to the accessing or obtaining of consumer credit reports and/or consumer credit 

information in connection with making firm offers of credit or Prescreening; or (d) any and all 

claims, actions, causes of action, rights or liabilities on, arising out of, or in any way relating or 

pertaining to claims that were made or could have been made in this Action based on facts alleged 

in the Complaint or the Amended Complaint, or any of the events, statements or allegations 

contained in the Complaint or the Amended Complaint (collectively as “Released Claims”). 

25. The Court finds the Settlement Agreement fair, adequate, and reasonable, and 

made in good faith and orders the parties to perform their obligations pursuant to the Settlement 

Agreement. 

26. Once judgment is entered, this Action will be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 

the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff and all Settlement Class members who did not 

timely and properly exclude themselves from the class will be bound by the Release provisions of 

the Settlement Agreement and will be barred and permanently enjoined from prosecuting any 

Released Claim against any Released Party.

27. Notice of entry of this order, and the ensuing final judgment, once entered, shall be 

given to Class Counsel on behalf of Plaintiff and all members of the Settlement Class, and to all 

Case 3:05-cv-03403-CRB Document 142 Filed 07/23/07 Page 8 of 9
- 9 -

07725/0070/633225.3 [Proposed] Order Approving Settlement

Case No.: C-05-3403-CRB

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

objectors. It shall not be necessary to send notice of entry of this order, or the ensuing final 

judgment to individual members of the Settlement Class. 

28. The Court retains jurisdiction over the interpretation, implementation and 

enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and of this Order, to hear and resolve any contested 

challenge to a claim for settlement benefits, to resolve plaintiff’s pending request for approval of 

attorneys’ fees and costs and for a cost bond on appeal, to enter a single, final judgment, and to 

supervise and adjudicate any dispute arising from or in connection with distribution of settlement 

benefits.

29. The Class Members who timely and properly excluded themselves from the 

Settlement are identified in Exhibit A attached hereto. Such Class Members are not bound by the 

terms of the Settlement Agreement, Release, or Judgment in this proceeding.

DATED: __________________, 2007 ______________________________________

The Honorable Charles R. Breyer

United States District Court, Northern District

July 23

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 142 Filed 07/23/07 Page 9 of 9