1 

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

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

Jahan C. Sagafi (Cal. Bar No. 224887) 

Rachel Dempsey (Cal. Bar No. 310424) 

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

One California Street, 12th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 638-8800 

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 

jsagafi@outtengolden.com 

rdempsey@outtengolden.com 

Ossai Miazad (pro hac vice) 

Michael N. Litrownik (pro hac vice) 

685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor 

New York, NY 10017 

Telephone: (212) 245-1000 

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 

om@outtengolden.com 

mlitrownik@outtengolden.com 

Jamie D. Wells (SBN 290827) 

MCGUIREWOODS LLP 

Two Embarcadero Center 

Suite 1300 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3821 

Telephone: 415.844.9944 

Facsimile: 415.844.9922 

K. Issac deVyver (pro hac vice) 

Karla Johnson (pro hac vice) 

Tower Two-Sixty 

260 Forbes Avenue 

Suite 1800 

Pittsburgh, PA 15222 

Telephone: 412.667.6000 

Facsimile: 412.667.6050 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes Attorneys for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

MITZIE PEREZ and SERGIO BARAJAS, 

individually, and ANDRES ACOSTA, 

TERESA DIAZ VEDOY, VICTORIA 

RODAS, and SAMUEL TABARES 

VILLAFUERTE, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 

 Defendant. 

 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00454-MMC 

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

This matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 

August 21, 2020, on the application of the Parties for approval of the Settlement set forth in the 

Settlement Agreement and Release dated June 16, 2020 (the “Agreement”). On August 21, 2020, 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 366 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 10
 2 

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

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

this Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed class action settlement set forth in the 

Agreement between Plaintiffs Mitzie Perez and Sergio Barajas, individually (“Individual 

Plaintiffs”), and Plaintiffs Victoria Rodas, Samuel Tabares Villafuerte, Teresa Diaz Vedoy, and 

Andres Acosta, together, the (“Class Representatives”), individually and as class representatives 

on behalf of the Class, and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) (collectively the 

“Parties”). This Court also provisionally certified the Class for settlement purposes, approved the 

procedure for giving Class Notice to the members of the Class, and set a Final Approval Hearing 

to take place on January 8, 2021. The Court finds that due and adequate notice was given to the 

Settlement Class as required in the Court’s Order. 

The Court has reviewed the papers filed in support of the motion for Final Approval, 

including the Settlement Agreement and exhibits thereto, memoranda and arguments submitted on 

behalf of the Settlement Class, and supporting affidavits. 

On January 8, 2021, this Court held a duly noticed Final Approval Hearing to consider: 

(1) whether the terms and conditions of the Agreement are fair, reasonable and adequate; 

(2) whether a judgment should be entered dismissing the Settlement Class Members’ Released 

Claims on the merits and with prejudice; and (3) whether and in what amount to award attorneys’ 

fees and expenses to Class Counsel; and any award to the Class Representatives for their 

representation of the Class. 

Based on the papers filed with the Court and the presentations made to the Court by the 

Parties and by other interested persons at the Final Approval Hearing, it appears to the Court that 

the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and in the best interests of the 

Settlement Class. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 

1. Definitions. This Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the 

Agreement, and all capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, shall have the same meanings 

as in the Agreement. 

2. Jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and 

over all parties to the Action, including all Members of the Class, and venue in this Court is proper. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 366 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 10
 3 

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

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. No Merits Determination. By entering this Order, the Court does not make any 

determination as to the merits of this case. 

4. Settlement Class. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

this Court hereby finally certifies this Action as a class action, with the Class defined as the 

collective group of all persons making up the National Class and the California Class, defined as 

follows: 

 “National Class” means those individuals who 

o (i) applied for credit from the Wells Fargo credit card line of business; 

(ii) between January 30, 2015 through the date of preliminary approval; 

(iii) who held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they applied for 

credit; (iv) who were denied as set forth in the class data produced by Wells 

Fargo; and (v) who were not California residents as indicated in the “home 

state” data field at the time they applied for credit as set forth in the class data 

produced by Wells Fargo; 

o (i) applied for credit from the Wells Fargo student lending line of business; 

(ii) between January 30, 2015 through the date of preliminary approval; 

(iii) who held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they applied for 

credit; (iv) who were denied as set forth in the class data produced by Wells 

Fargo; and (v) who were not California residents at the time they applied for 

credit as set forth in the class data produced by Wells Fargo; 

o (i) applied for credit from the Wells Fargo personal lines and loans line of 

business; (ii) between January 30, 2015 through the date of preliminary 

approval; (iii) who held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they 

applied for credit; (iv) who were denied as set forth in the class data produced 

by Wells Fargo; and (v) who were not California residents at the time they 

applied for credit as set forth in the class data produced by Wells Fargo;

o (i) applied for credit from the Wells Fargo small business lending line of 

business; (ii) between January 30, 2015 through the date of preliminary 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 366 Filed 01/08/21 Page 3 of 10
 4 

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

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

approval; (iii) who held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they 

applied for credit; (iv) who were denied as set forth in the class data produced 

by Wells Fargo; and (v) who were either residents of another state or a resident 

of California at the time they applied for credit as set forth in the class data 

produced by Wells Fargo. 

o (i) applied for credit from the Wells Fargo home mortgage line of business; 

(ii) between January 29, 2018 through the date of preliminary approval; 

(iii) who held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they applied for 

credit; (iv) who were denied as set forth in the class data produced by Wells 

Fargo; and (v) who were not California residents at the time they applied for 

credit as set forth in the class data produced by Wells Fargo. 

o Excluded from the National Class are Wells Fargo, all officers, directors, and 

employees of Wells Fargo, and their legal representatives, heirs, or assigns, and 

any Judges to whom the Action is assigned, their staffs, and their immediate 

families. 

 “California Class” means those individuals who 

o (i) applied for credit from the Wells Fargo credit card line of business; 

(ii) between January 30, 2015 through the date of preliminary approval; 

(iii) who held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they applied for 

credit; (iv) who were denied as set forth in the class data produced by Wells 

Fargo; and (v) who were California residents as indicated in the “home state” 

data field at the time they applied for credit as set forth in the class data 

produced by Wells Fargo. 

o (i) applied for credit from the Wells Fargo student lending line of business; 

(ii) between January 30, 2015 through the date of preliminary approval; 

(iii) who held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they applied for 

credit; (iv) who were denied as set forth in the class data produced by Wells 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 366 Filed 01/08/21 Page 4 of 10
 5 

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

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

Fargo; and (v) who were California residents at the time they applied for credit 

as set forth in the class data produced by Wells Fargo. 

o (i) applied for credit from the Wells Fargo personal lines and loans line of 

business; (ii) between January 30, 2015 through the date of preliminary 

approval; (iii) who held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they 

applied for credit; (iv) who were denied as set forth in the class data produced 

by Wells Fargo; and (v) who were California residents at the time they applied 

for credit as set forth in the class data produced by Wells Fargo. 

o (i) applied for credit from the Wells Fargo home mortgage line of business; 

(ii) between January 29, 2018 through the date of preliminary approval; 

(iii) who held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they applied for 

credit; (iv) who were denied as set forth in the class data produced by Wells 

Fargo; and (v) who were California residents at the time they applied for credit 

as set forth in the class data produced by Wells Fargo. 

o Excluded from the California Class are Wells Fargo, all officers, directors, and 

employees of Wells Fargo, and their legal representatives, heirs, or assigns, and 

any Judges to whom the Action is assigned, their staffs, and their immediate 

families. 

The Court finds, for settlement purposes only, that class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(b)(3) is appropriate in that, in the settlement context: (a) the Members of each Class are so 

numerous that joinder of all Class Members in the class action is impracticable; (b) there are 

questions of law and fact common to each Class which predominate over any individual question; 

(c) the claims of the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of each Class; (d) the Class 

Representatives will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class Members 

because their interests are co-extensive with those of the Class Members, and they have retained 

experienced counsel to represent them and the Class Members; and (e) a class action is superior to 

other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 366 Filed 01/08/21 Page 5 of 10
 6 

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

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. Designation of Class Representatives and Class Counsel. The Court confirms 

the prior appointments of the Plaintiffs Victoria Rodas, Samuel Tabares Villafuerte, Teresa Diaz 

Vedoy, and Andres Acosta as Class Representatives for the Nationwide Class and Victoria Rodas, 

Samuel Tabares Villafuerte, and Teresa Diaz Vedoy to serve as Class Representatives for the 

California Class, and the counsel of record representing the Class Representatives in the Action as 

Class Counsel. 

6. Settlement Approval. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, this Court 

hereby approves the Settlement set forth in the Agreement and finds that the Settlement is, in all 

respects, fair, reasonable and adequate to the Parties. The Court further finds that the Settlement 

set forth in the Agreement is the result of good faith arm’s-length negotiations between 

experienced counsel representing the interests of the Parties. Accordingly, the Settlement 

embodied in the Agreement is hereby finally approved in all respects, there is no just reason for 

delay, and the Parties are hereby directed to perform its terms. 

7. Dismissal with Prejudice. Final Judgment is hereby entered with respect to the 

Released Claims of all Settlement Class Members, and the Released Claims in the Action are 

hereby dismissed in their entirety with prejudice and without costs. All claims in the Action are 

dismissed, and the case shall be closed pursuant to Paragraph 23 of this Order. Nothing herein is 

intended to waive or prejudice the rights of the Class Member who submitted a timely and valid 

Request to Opt Out form, specifically, Alberto Madrigal.1

8. Releases. The releases as set forth in Section 10 of the Agreement together with 

the definitions in Sections 1.1-1.50 relating thereto are expressly incorporated herein in all respects 

and made effective by operation of this Judgment. The Court hereby approves the release 

provisions as contained and incorporated in Section 10 of the Agreement, including but not limited 

to the definitions of Released Claims, Releasors, Releasees and Unknown Claims. The Releasors 

shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, fully, finally and forever 

1

 At the hearing, the Court referenced a second class member who had submitted a Request 

to Opt Out form, which the Court, upon further review of the record, notes was described by the 

Settlement Administrator as invalid. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 366 Filed 01/08/21 Page 6 of 10
 7 

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

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

released, relinquished and discharged all Released Claims (including Unknown Claims) against 

the Releasees. 

9. Permanent Injunction. The Releasors, including the Class Representatives and 

all Settlement Class Members, and anyone claiming through or on behalf of any of them, are 

forever barred and enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating 

in (as class members or otherwise) any action in any jurisdiction for the Released Claims. The 

Releasors further are forever barred and enjoined from organizing Settlement Class Members, or 

soliciting the participation of Settlement Class Members, or persons who would otherwise fall 

within the definition of Settlement Class Members but who have requested to be excluded from 

the Settlement Classes, in a separate class for purposes of pursuing any action (including by 

seeking to amend a pending complaint or counterclaim to include class allegations, or seeking 

class certification in a pending action in any jurisdiction based on or relating to any of the Released 

Claims). 

10. Approval of Class Notice. The form and means of disseminating the Class Notice, 

as provided for in (a) the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice and 

(b) the Joint Stipulation and Order to Modify Forms & Instructions Document to be Mailed in 

Notice Packet, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including individual 

notice to all Members of the Classes who could be identified through reasonable effort. Said 

Notice provided the best notice practicable under the circumstances of the proceedings and the 

matters set forth therein, including the proposed Settlement set forth in the Agreement, to all 

persons entitled to such notice, and said Notice fully satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 23 and complied with all laws, including, but not limited to, the Due Process 

Clause of the United States Constitution. 

11. Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have moved for an 

award of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses in the amount of $5,000,000. The Court has 

considered this application separately from this Judgment. The Court finds that an award of 

$5,000,000 in attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses is fair and reasonable, and the Court approves of 

Class Counsel attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses in this amount. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 366 Filed 01/08/21 Page 7 of 10
 8 

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

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. Class Representative Incentive Awards. The Court further finds that incentive 

awards for Plaintiffs Victoria Rodas, Samuel Tabares Villafuerte, Teresa Diaz Vedoy, and Andres 

Acosta in the amount of $17,000 each are fair and reasonable, and the Court approves of the 

incentive awards in this amount. The Court directs the Settlement Administrator to disburse this 

award to Plaintiffs Victoria Rodas, Samuel Tabares Villafuerte, Teresa Diaz Vedoy, and Andres 

Acosta as provided in the Settlement Agreement. 

13. Payments to Individual Plaintiffs. The Court further finds that individual 

payments for Plaintiffs Mitzie Perez and Sergio Barajas in the amount of $17,000 each are fair and 

reasonable, the Court approves the individual payments in this amount. The Court directs the 

Settlement Administrator to disburse this award to Plaintiffs Mitzie Perez and Sergio Barajas as 

provided in the Settlement Agreement. 

14. Use of Order. Neither this Order, the fact that a settlement was reached and filed, 

the Agreement, nor any related negotiations, statements or proceedings shall be construed as, 

offered as, admitted as, received as, used as, or deemed to be an admission or concession of liability 

or wrongdoing whatsoever or breach of any duty on the part of Wells Fargo. This Order is not a 

finding of the validity or invalidity of any of the claims asserted or defenses raised in the Action. 

In no event shall this Order, the fact that a settlement was reached, the Agreement, or any of its 

provisions or any negotiations, statements, or proceedings relating to it in any way be used, offered, 

admitted, or referred to in the Action, in any other action, or in any judicial, administrative, 

regulatory, arbitration, or other proceeding, by any person or entity, except by the Parties and only 

the Parties in a proceeding to enforce the Agreement. 

15. Continuing Jurisdiction. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any 

way, this Court hereby retains continuing jurisdiction over the administration, consummation, 

enforcement, and interpretation of the Agreement, the Final Judgment, and for any other necessary 

purpose, including to ensure compliance with the Protective Order. 

16. Termination of Settlement. In the event that the Settlement does not become 

effective in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, or the Agreement is terminated pursuant 

to Section 13 of the Agreement, the Parties shall be restored to their respective positions in the 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 366 Filed 01/08/21 Page 8 of 10
 9 

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

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

Action prior to the execution of the Agreement, the certification of the Settlement Classes shall be 

automatically vacated, and this Judgment shall be rendered null and void (except Paragraph 14 of 

this Order shall remain in effect) to the extent provided by and in accordance with the Agreement 

and shall be vacated and, in such event, all orders entered and releases delivered in connection 

herewith shall be null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the Agreement. 

17. Implementation of the Agreement. The Parties are hereby authorized to 

implement the terms of the Agreement. 

18. Claim Review and Deficiency Process. The Settlement Administrator shall 

validate each timely Claim Form as directed in Section 5 of the Agreement, as well as the untimely 

Claim Forms submitted by three of the Named Plaintiffs (see Notice, filed January 6, 2021, at 

1:15-16), the 42 untimely Claim Forms submitted by Class Members (see id. at 1:17-19), the 20 

Claim Forms submitted by Class Members on time but on the wrong form (see Keough Decl., filed 

January 5, 2021, ¶ 6), and all Claim Forms submitted by Class Members within 14 days of the 

mailing of a cure notice from the Settlement Administrator (see Miazad Decl., filed January 6, 

2021, ¶ 3). Full compliance with the requirements of the terms of the Agreement and the Claim 

Form shall be necessary for the submission of a Verified Claim. The Settlement Administrator 

shall have the authority to determine whether the submission of a Claim Form is complete and 

timely. The Settlement Administrator’s determinations in this regard shall be final and nonappealable. Any Settlement Class Member whose claim is rejected shall be barred from receiving 

payment under the Settlement for that Claim but shall in all other respects be bound by the terms 

of the Agreement and by this Order. 

19. Reasonable Extensions. Without further order of this Court, the Parties may agree 

to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Agreement. 

20. Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Notice. Wells Fargo has provided notification 

through the settlement administrator to all appropriate federal and state officials regarding the 

Settlement as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1715. 

21. Class Notice List. No later than thirty (30) days after the Effective Date (as defined 

in the Agreement), the Settlement Administrator shall file with this Court, under seal pursuant to 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 366 Filed 01/08/21 Page 9 of 10
 10 

[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

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

the Protective Order entered in this litigation (in order to protect the names, addresses, and other 

personal information of Class Members), a list of the names and addresses of all Members of the 

Class to whom the Class Notice was sent. 

22. Entry of Final Judgment. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this 

Order and Final Judgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed. 

23. Action Closed. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to close the Action. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 8, 2021 _____________________________________ 

THE HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 366 Filed 01/08/21 Page 10 of 10