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

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

Jahan C. Sagafi 

Cal. Bar No. 224887 

Nantiya Ruan

Cal. Bar No. 230488 

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 638-8800 

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 

jsagafi@outtengolden.com 

nruan@outtengolden.com 

Thomas Saenz,

Cal. Bar No. 159430

Victor Viramontes 

Cal. Bar No. 214158 

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND

EDUCATIONAL FUND

634 S. Spring St., 11th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90014 

Telephone: (213) 629-2512 

Facsimile: (213) 629-0266 

tsaenz@maldef.org

vviramontes@maldef.org

Attorney for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 

(Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MITZIE PEREZ, ANDRES ACOSTA, 

SERGIO BARAJAS, TERESA DIAZ 

VEDOY, VICTORIA RODAS, and SAMUEL 

TABARES VILLAFUERTE, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, and 

CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF UNITED 

LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454 (MMC)

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

FOR VIOLATION OF

42 U.S.C. § 1981 AND CALIFORNIA 

STATE LAW

CLASS ACTION

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 1 of 20
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 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

Plaintiffs Mitzie Perez, Andres Acosta, Sergio Barajas, Teresa Diaz Vedoy, Victoria 

Rodas, and Samuel Tabares Villafuerte (the “Individual Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, and the California League of United Latin American Citizens 

(“California LULAC”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) by their attorneys, bring the following 

allegations against Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo” or “Defendant”):

SUMMARY OF CLAIM

1. Plaintiffs Mitzie Perez, Andres Acosta, Sergio Barajas, Teresa Diaz Vedoy, 

Victoria Rodas, and Samuel Tabares Villafuerte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, and California LULAC bring this case against Wells Fargo for unlawful discrimination in 

violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as codified by 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”), the 

Unruh Civil Rights Act, as codified by California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq., and the Unfair 

Competition Law, as codified by California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.

2. Wells Fargo, an American multinational banking and financial services company, 

outright refuses to extend loans and other financial products to individuals who are not U.S. 

citizens or permanent residents. This company-wide policy and practice of denying individuals the 

right to contract for a loan or other financial product based on alienage is discriminatory and 

unlawful under Section 1981, Sections 51(b) and 51.5 of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and Section 

17200 of the California Unfair Competition Law.

PARTIES

Plaintiff Mitzie Perez

3. Plaintiff Mitzie Perez is a third-year undergraduate student at the University of 

California, Riverside, majoring in Gender & Sexuality Studies. 

4. Ms. Perez has authorization to work in the U.S. under Deferred Action for 

Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”).

Plaintiff Andres Acosta

5. Plaintiff Andres Acosta is a resident of Austin, Texas and a small business 

owner. He has a bachelor’s degree in construction science and a master’s degree in real estate 

from Texas A&M University.

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 2 of 20
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 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

6. Mr. Acosta has authorization to work in the U.S. under DACA.

Plaintiff Sergio Barajas

7. Plaintiff Sergio Barajas is a part-time student at Chabott Community College in 

Hayward, California.

8. Mr. Barajas has authorization to work in the U.S. under DACA.

Plaintiff Teresa Diaz Vedoy

9. Plaintiff Teresa Diaz Vedoy is an undergraduate student at Cerritos College in 

Norwalk California, majoring in Anthropology. 

10. Ms. Diaz Vedoy has authorization to work in the U.S. under DACA.

Plaintiff Victoria Rodas

11. Plaintiff Victoria Rodas is a second-year graduate student at Loyola Marymount 

University (“LMU”), located in Los Angeles, California, studying counseling.

12. Ms. Rodas has authorization to work in the U.S. under DACA.

Plaintiff Samuel Tabares Villafuerte

13. Plaintiff Samuel Tabares Villafuerte is a third-year undergraduate student at 

California State Polytechnic University, located in Pomona, California, majoring in Engineering. 

14. Mr. Tabares Villafuerte has authorization to work in the U.S. under DACA. 

Plaintiff California LULAC

15. Plaintiff California LULAC is a Latino organization with members and chapters 

located in many cities and towns throughout the State of California. Plaintiff California LULAC 

files this action individually as a distinguished Latino civil rights organization and on behalf of 

its DACA recipient members, who are also members of the proposed class. One of LULAC’s 

primary functions and purposes is the improvement and advancement of educational 

opportunities for persons of Latino and Mexican-American descent or nationality and the 

protection and defense of the civil rights of this major ethnic and national origin group. As an 

organization and on behalf of its members, California LULAC has championed the rights of 

Latino students for decades. 

16. Plaintiff California LULAC’s members include members of the proposed class. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 3 of 20
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 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

Wells Fargo’s policy of denying loans and other financial products to DACA recipients affects 

many of California LULAC’s members. Additionally, Wells Fargo’s policy impedes California 

LULAC’s ability to carry out its mission to advance the educational attainment and civil rights 

of the Latino population in California and, more broadly, throughout the United States. 

Defendant

17. Wells Fargo is an American multinational banking and financial services company 

headquartered in San Francisco, California. It is the fourth largest bank in the United States.

18. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a South Dakota corporation authorized to do business in 

this state.

19. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national bank and the primary United States operating 

subsidiary of Wells Fargo. 

20. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. offers consumers a range of financial products, including 

private student loans to help undergraduate and graduate students pay for eligible academic 

expenses. 

21. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., by soliciting, conducting, and transacting business in the 

state of California, engages in continuous, permanent, and substantial activity within the state. 

22. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is not a federal enclave and therefore is subject to 

Plaintiffs’ Section 1981 claim.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

23. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Section 1981 claim 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law 

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

24. This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

2201 and 2202.

25. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district and 

Wells Fargo conducts business within this district. 

26. Intradistrict assignment: Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Local Rules 3-2(c) and (d), 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 4 of 20
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 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

intradistrict assignment to the San Francisco Division is proper because a substantial part of the 

events which give rise to the claims asserted herein occurred at Wells Fargo’s headquarters located 

in San Francisco County.

BACKGROUND

27. On June 15, 2012, President Obama announced that the Department of Homeland 

Security (“DHS”) would no longer remove certain young immigrants under its authority to grant 

deferred action as embodied in DACA. 

28. DACA’s purpose, according to President Obama, was to “[stop] expel[ling] talented 

young people, who . . . [have] been raised as Americans; understand themselves to be part of this 

country . . . [and] who want to staff our labs, or start new businesses, or defend our country.”1

29. DACA is a form of deferred action, a discretionary grant of authorized stay by the 

federal government. Deferred action granted through DACA is valid for two years and is subject 

to renewal thereafter. 

30. DACA mandates that persons who are granted deferred action will be eligible to

obtain an Employment Authorization Document (an “EAD” or “federal work permit”) and a 

Social Security number. In other words, those granted deferred action and in possession of an 

EAD are legally authorized to work in the United States, and can prove their identity.

31. As of March 31, 2016, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(“USCIS”) has approved over 1.3 million initial and renewal requests for DACA.2

32. There is no federal or state law or regulation that restricts banks from providing 

financial products to customers because the customer is an alien. Under federal law, alienage is 

merely one factor among many used to verify enough information to confirm the true identity of 

the customer.

 

1 President Obama, Remarks by the President on Immigration (June 15, 2012), available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/15/remarks-president-immigration (last 

visited March 6, 2017). 

2 USCIS, Number of I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals by Fiscal 

Year, Quarter, Intake, Biometrics and Case Status: 2012-2016 (March 31), available at

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigrati

on%20Forms%20Data/All%20Form%20Types/DACA/I821d_performancedata_fy2016_qtr2.pdf 

(last visited March 6, 2017). 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 5 of 20
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 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

33. For instance, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (“FFIEC”) 

provides uniform principles and standards to offer guidance for federal regulators. The FFIEC 

annually publishes the Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering Examination Manual for Money 

Services, which contains a compliance program called the Customer Identification Program 

(“CIP”), as required by section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act, 31 U.S.C. § 5318. Pursuant to 

CIP, institutions providing financial services, including banks, must have a written policy in place 

to enable them to form a reasonable belief that they know the true identity of each customer. The 

goal behind this requirement is to prevent the funding of terrorism both inside and outside of the 

United States.3

34. According to the Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering Examination Manual, 

a bank’s CIP must contain account-opening procedures detailing the identifying information that 

must be obtained from each customer. At a minimum, the bank must obtain the following 

information from each customer before opening an account: 1) name, 2) date of birth, 3) address, 

and 4) identification number (e.g., Social Security number, taxpayer identification number or an 

alien identification number).4

 

35. The bank’s procedure must also describe when it will use documents, nondocumentary methods, or a combination of both. Federal banking agencies expect that banks will 

review an unexpired government-issued form of identification from most customers. The 

identification must include evidence of the customer’s nationality or residence and bear a 

photograph or similar safeguard.5 

36. Compliance with the CIP is to ensure that a bank verify enough information to form 

 

3 See 12 C.F.R. 208.63(b), 211.5(m), 211.24(j) (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System); 12 C.F.R. 326.8(b) (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation); 12 C.F.R. 748.2(b) 

(National Credit Union Administration); 12 C.F.R. 21.21 (Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency); 12 C.F.R. 563.177(b) (Office of Thrift Supervision); and 31 C.F.R. 103.121 (FinCEN).

4 Fed. Fin. Inst. Examination Council, Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering Examination 

Manual 54 (2010), available at 

http://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/documents/bsa_aml_man_2010.pdf (last visited March 6, 

2017).

5 Id. at 54 n.48.

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 6 of 20
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 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the customer.6

37. “Opening an account” and a financial services “customer” for purposes of the Bank 

Secrecy Act/Anti Money Laundering Examination Manual for Money Services includes an 

individual who has applied for a loan application.7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff Perez

38. Ms. Perez is a DACA recipient with an EAD and Social Security number. She is 

a third-year student at UC Riverside. 

39. On August 26, 2016, Ms. Perez sought a student loan through the Wells Fargo 

website to help pay for cost of attendance and college-incurred debt. After answering a few 

preliminary questions, including that she was seeking a loan to pay student expenses, that she 

was a junior in college, and that she was neither a U.S. citizen nor a permanent resident, she was 

denied a loan, receiving a message that read: “Thank you for your interest in a Wells Fargo 

student loan. However, based on information you provided, we do not have a student loan 

option that meets your needs. This could be due to the school you selected, your field of study, 

and/or your citizenship status.” 

40. In an attempt to better understand the reason for the denial, Ms. Perez returned to 

the prior screen and changed the response to the question about citizenship to “I am a permanent 

resident alien,” and she received information about a student loan option. At the top of the 

screen there was a note that read: “Based on the citizenship status you provided, a U.S. citizen 

cosigner will be required for this application.” Ms. Perez was thus denied a student loan due to 

her citizenship status. Had Ms. Perez been allowed to apply for a loan, she would have had a 

cosigner available to meet Wells Fargo’s cosigner requirement.

41. Ms. Perez suffered a loss of money as a result of Wells Fargo’s denial of her 

student loan application because she was forced to finance her cost of attendance using various 

credit cards with interest rates higher than she would have received through a student loan. Ms. 

 

6 Id. at 52-4.

7 Id. at 53.

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 7 of 20
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 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

Perez suffered further losses of money because she was then unable to meet all her credit card 

payment obligations and incurred resulting financial penalties. 

Plaintiff Acosta

42. Mr. Acosta is a DACA recipient with an EAD and Social Security number. He 

works at a real estate company and is a small business owner in Austin, Texas. He has a 

bachelor’s degree in construction science and a master’s degree in real estate from Texas A&M 

University.

43. On or around August 2015, Mr. Acosta applied for a commercial equipment loan 

for approximately $13,000 at a local Wells Fargo branch in Austin, Texas. Mr. Acosta wanted to 

use the loan to purchase a truck and expand his construction business. A personal banker from the 

branch assisted him with his application. Mr. Acosta informed the Wells Fargo personal banker 

that he was neither a U.S. citizen nor a permanent resident. The personal banker told Mr. Acosta 

that he would just go ahead and submit Mr. Acosta’s application and await a response.

44. A couple of days later, the same Wells Fargo personal banker called Mr. Acosta and 

told him to return to the branch to provide further documentation for his Social Security 

number. Mr. Acosta provided a copy of his Social Security card, his EAD, and his driver’s 

license.

45. At the time of his commercial equipment loan application, Mr. Acosta already had a 

Wells Fargo credit card which he maintained in good standing and a loan from Wells Fargo’s 

dealership services, both of which he obtained in 2014. He also maintained both personal and 

business checking accounts with Wells Fargo. 

46. Within two weeks after he provided additional documentation, the same Wells 

Fargo personal banker called Mr. Acosta and informed him that Wells Fargo did not approve his 

loan application because he was neither a U.S. citizen nor a permanent resident. The Wells Fargo 

personal banker told Mr. Acosta that this was pursuant to Wells Fargo’s policy. A few days later, 

Mr. Acosta received a letter in the mail from Wells Fargo confirming his loan denial.

47. Shortly after Wells Fargo denied him the loan, Wells Fargo also abruptly cancelled 

Mr. Acosta’s credit card account without giving him notice and sent his outstanding credit card 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 8 of 20
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 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

balance—which was approximately $4,400—to its Wells Fargo Collections Department, where it 

quickly accrued interest.

48. Mr. Acosta called Wells Fargo’s customer service line to request re-activation of 

his credit card. The Wells Fargo customer representative who he spoke with told him that they 

would investigate and follow up. He did not hear back from Wells Fargo and his credit card was 

not reactivated.

49. Mr. Acosta suffered a loss of money as a result of Wells Fargo’s denial of his 

commercial loan application because he had to take out a loan with the truck dealership directly at 

a higher interest rate than he would have obtained through a lending bank. 

Plaintiff Barajas

50. Mr. Barajas is a DACA recipient with an EAD and Social Security number. He is 

a part-time student at Chabott Community College in Hayward, California, pursuing an 

Associate’s degree in Nursing.

51. On or about March 2016, Mr. Barajas applied for a Wells Fargo credit card in 

person at a Wells Fargo branch in San Lorenzo, California. Mr. Barajas believed that because he 

already had a checking and savings account with Wells Fargo, that he could also obtain a credit 

card from the bank. Mr. Barajas wanted to use the credit card to pay for his educational 

expenses, such as tuition and books, so that he could attend school full-time. Full-time tuition 

was then approximately $2,000 per semester.

52. He filled out the Wells Fargo credit card application form and submitted it to a 

personal banker.

53. On or around June 22, 2016, Mr. Barajas received a letter from Wells Fargo 

asking him for his Social Security number.

54. Mr. Barajas went back to the San Lorenzo branch in person and provided Wells 

Fargo with a copy of his Social Security card, EAD, and driver’s license. The personal banker 

assisting him made copies of his documents and uploaded them with his application.

55. Later the same day, Wells Fargo called Mr. Barajas to request a copy of his “green 

card.” The Wells Fargo representative told him that if he did not have a green card, Wells Fargo 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 9 of 20
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 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

would deny his credit card application. Left with no choice, Mr. Barajas instructed the Wells 

Fargo representative to cancel his application.

56. Mr. Barajas suffered a loss of money as a result of Wells Fargo’s denial of his 

credit card application because he was forced to withdraw approximately $600 from his savings 

account to pay for his tuition. 

Plaintiff Diaz Vedoy

57. Ms. Diaz Vedoy is a DACA recipient with an EAD. She is an undergraduate 

student at Cerritos College. 

58. On or about January 28, 2017, Ms. Diaz Vedoy visited a Wells Fargo branch 

office seeking a personal loan for approximately $6,000 and a credit card to help pay for collegeincurred debt and for her parents’ immigration application. Ms. Diaz Vedoy’s parents’ 

immigration application cost approximately $5,000, inclusive of attorneys’ fees, and Ms. Vedoy 

also wanted to use the Wells Fargo credit card to consolidate the balances from three other cards 

and save on interest rate payments.

59. After completing paperwork for both applications and leaving the Wells Fargo 

branch office, she later received a telephone call asking her to return to the Wells Fargo branch 

office and provide a copy of her Social Security card. 

60. On or about February 7, 2017, Ms. Diaz Vedoy returned to the Wells Fargo 

branch office with her Social Security card. A Wells Fargo employee made a photocopy of Ms. 

Diaz Vedoy’s Social Security card and returned it to her. 

61. In early February 2017, Ms. Diaz Vedoy received a letter from Wells Fargo dated 

February 8, 2017, stating that her application for a personal loan and credit card were denied 

because she was “not a permanent United States resident.”

62. Ms. Diaz Vedoy suffered a loss of money as a result of Wells Fargo’s denial of 

credit because she was forced to take out $3,000 from her personal savings to pay for her 

parents’ immigration application and cover other college-related expenses on credit cards with 

higher interest rates. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 10 of 20
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 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

Plaintiff Rodas

63. Ms. Rodas is a DACA recipient with an EAD and Social Security number. She is a 

second-year graduate student at LMU, studying counseling.

64. In early June 2016, Ms. Rodas contacted Wells Fargo in order to inquire about 

applying for a student loan to pay for her summer session. The Wells Fargo representative 

informed Ms. Rodas that she would need a co-signer because she was not a U.S. citizen, and that 

she would need to fill out her application online.

65. Soon thereafter, Ms. Rodas submitted a Wells Fargo student loan application 

online. She noted in her application that she was a “Non-Resident Alien,” and submitted her EAD 

and Social Security card.

66. Ms. Rodas obtained a co-signer, who also submitted paperwork by mail in 

connection with Ms. Rodas’s application.

67. On or around June 13, 2016, a Wells Fargo representative contacted Ms. Rodas, 

requesting that she submit either an I-20 or an I-94 form. Ms. Rodas informed the Wells Fargo 

representative that she did not have either of those forms because she did not have the visas 

associated with those forms. The Wells Fargo representative suggested that she contact LMU and 

ask if they would assist her in obtaining an S-1 visa for international students. At Wells Fargo’s 

behest, Ms. Rodas contacted LMU to inquire about the S-1 visa and LMU told her she was not 

qualified for such a visa. Ms. Rodas then resubmitted information to Wells Fargo regarding her 

DACA status.

68. Ms. Rodas called Wells Fargo sometime in July 2016 to follow-up on her student 

loan application. A Wells Fargo representative informed Ms. Rodas that her application had been 

denied because she was not a permanent resident. Ms. Rodas later received confirmation about her 

denial in the mail.

69. Ms. Rodas suffered a loss of money as a result of Wells Fargo’s denial of her 

student loan application because she ended up borrowing approximately $5,000 from various

family members and had to pay some educational expenses from her own savings. Because she 

owed family members so much money, Ms. Rodas was also forced to work more hours at her job, 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 11 of 20
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 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

cutting into her time for academic studies and forcing her to only take one class during the Fall 

semester.

Plaintiff Tabares Villafuerte

70. Mr. Tabares Villafuerte is a DACA recipient with an EAD. He is a third-year 

student at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California. 

71. In January 2017, Mr. Tabares Villafuerte visited a Wells Fargo branch office in 

Riverside, California, seeking a student credit card to build a positive credit history and to pay 

for educational expenses. After completing the credit card application with a personal banker 

and leaving the Wells Fargo branch office, he later received a telephone call from the personal 

banker asking him to return to the branch office and provide a copy of his Social Security card. 

72. Mr. Tabares Villafuerte returned soon thereafter to the Wells Fargo branch office 

with his Social Security card. The Wells Fargo representative made a photocopy of Mr. Tabares 

Villafuerte’s Social Security card, as well as his work authorization card and driver’s license, 

and returned them to him. 

73. Soon thereafter, Mr. Tabares Villafuerte received a phone call from the same 

personal banker informing him that Wells Fargo denied his credit card application because his 

Social Security number was “a different kind of social.” Then a few days later, he received a 

letter dated January 30, 2017, from Wells Fargo stating that his application for a credit card was 

denied because he was “not a permanent United States resident.”

74. Mr. Tabares Villafuerte suffered a loss of money as a result of Wells Fargo’s 

denial of his student credit card application because he was forced to use over $2,000 of his 

personal savings for his educational expenses.

Wells Fargo’s Policy is Unlawful and Harms Plaintiffs

75. Wells Fargo’s refusal to offer Plaintiffs and other non-U.S. citizens who are 

members of California LULAC an opportunity to contract for private loans or other financial 

products because of its arbitrary citizenship requirements is a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

76. Wells Fargo’s refusal to offer Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and

Tabares Villafuerte and other non-U.S. citizens who are members of California LULAC an 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 12 of 20
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 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

opportunity to contract for private loans or other financial products violates California’s Unruh 

Civil Rights Act.

77. Wells Fargo’s refusal to offer Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and 

Tabares Villafuerte and other non-U.S. citizens who are members of California LULAC an 

opportunity to contract for private loans or other financial products violates the California Unfair 

Competition Law.

78. In addition, Wells Fargo’s unlawful policy harms California LULAC’s ability to 

carry out its mission and forces it to divert resources from its primary advocacy projects in order to 

assist its members who are adversely affected by their inability to obtain student loans and other 

financial products from Wells Fargo.

79. There is an actual and substantial controversy between Plaintiffs and Wells Fargo.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

80. Plaintiffs Perez, Acosta, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte 

bring their class allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of a class 

defined as follows: All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States who were denied the 

right to contract for a loan or other financial product by Wells Fargo because they were not U.S. 

citizens between January 30, 2013 and the date of final judgment in this action (the “Class”). 

81. Plaintiffs Perez, Acosta, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte are 

members of the Class.

82. Upon information and belief, the members of the Class are so numerous that joinder 

of all of them is impracticable. Wells Fargo has offices throughout the United States, USCIS has 

approved over 1.3 million initial and renewal requests for DACA, and there are thousands of 

people who do not meet Wells Fargo’s citizenship status requirements. Plaintiffs do not know the 

precise number of Class members as this information is in Wells Fargo’s possession.

83. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, and these questions 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common questions include, 

among others: (1) whether it is Wells Fargo’s policy or practice to reject applicants for loans or 

other financial products because they are not U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents; (2) 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 13 of 20
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

14 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

whether Wells Fargo’s policy as set forth above deprives Plaintiffs and the Class of the right to 

contract in violation of Section 1981; (3) whether Wells Fargo’s policy as set forth above deprives 

Plaintiffs and the Class of rights Under the Unruh Civil Rights Act; (4) whether Wells Fargo’s 

policy as set forth above deprives Plaintiffs and the Class of rights under the California Unfair 

Competition Law; (5) whether the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered harm by reason of Wells 

Fargo’s unlawful policy; (6) whether Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to compensatory 

damages; (7) whether Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to punitive damages; (8) what equitable 

and injunctive relief for the Class is warranted; and (9) the scope of a resulting permanent 

injunction.

84. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class: (1) Plaintiffs were within 

the jurisdiction of the United States and not a citizen of the United States; (2) Plaintiffs sought 

loans and/or other financial products, including credit cards, from Wells Fargo; and (3) Plaintiffs 

were refused due to their alienage status. All of these claims are substantially shared by each and 

every class member. All of the claims arise from the same course of conduct by Wells Fargo, and 

the relief sought is common.

85. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the 

members of the Class. Plaintiffs have no conflict with any class member. Plaintiffs are committed 

to the goal of having Wells Fargo revise its policies to stop discriminating against Plaintiffs and 

others who are not U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. 

86. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex 

discrimination class actions.

87. The universe of people affected by Wells Fargo’s unlawful policy is ascertainable 

through Wells Fargo’s records and therefore the proposed class is ascertainable. 

88. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Wells 

Fargo has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making 

appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the Class as a whole. 

Wells Fargo has refused to lend or extend credit to anyone who does not fit its citizenship 

requirements, i.e., the Class. The Class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end Wells 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 14 of 20
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

15 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

Fargo’s common, uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policy and/or practice and other make-whole 

relief. 

89. Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because 

common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual 

members of the Class, and because a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this litigation since joinder of all members is impracticable. The 

Class members have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of Wells Fargo’s 

common, uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policies and practices. Damages are capable of 

measurement on a classwide basis. The propriety and amount of punitive damages are based on 

Wells Fargo’s conduct, making these issues common to the Class. Plaintiffs and the Class will 

rely on common evidence to resolve their legal and factual questions. There are no pending 

actions raising similar claims. Wells Fargo engages in continuous, permanent, and substantial 

activity in California. There will be no undue difficulty in the management of this litigation as a 

class action.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Alienage Discrimination 

(42 U.S.C. § 1981)

90. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs.

91. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class.

92. Plaintiff California LULAC brings this claim on its behalf. 

93. Plaintiffs are persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.

94. Plaintiffs are aliens.

95. Plaintiffs have the right to make and enforce contracts in the United States and are 

entitled to the full and equal benefits of the law. 

96. Wells Fargo intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Class on the basis 

of alienage by denying them the opportunity to contract for a loan or other financial product. 

97. Wells Fargo’s intentional discrimination against Plaintiffs and the Class interfered 

with their right to make and enforce contracts for financial products. 

98. Wells Fargo’s policy and practice of denying loans or other financial products 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 15 of 20
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

16 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

based on Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s alienage harmed Plaintiffs and the Class and constitutes 

unlawful alienage discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts in violation of 42 

U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff California LULAC has also been harmed, as it has been forced to divert 

resources from its primary advocacy projects in order to assist its members who are adversely 

affected by their inability to obtain loans or other financial products from Wells Fargo.

99. Plaintiffs and the Class have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to 

redress the wrongs alleged herein, and the injunctive relief sought in this action is the only means 

of securing complete and adequate relief. Plaintiffs and the Class they seek to represent are now 

suffering, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury from Wells Fargo’s discriminatory acts 

and omissions.

100. Wells Fargo’s conduct has caused, and continues to cause, Plaintiffs and the 

members of the Class substantial losses in earnings and other work benefits.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act

(California Civil Code §§ 51 and 52 et seq.)

101. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs.

102. Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte bring this 

claim on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class. 

103. Plaintiff California LULAC brings this claim on its behalf. 

104. Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte are persons 

within the jurisdiction of the United States.

105. Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte are aliens 

who hold DACA status. 

106. Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte are entitled to 

the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business 

establishments of every kind whatsoever no matter their immigration status and no business 

establishment of any kind whatsoever may refuse to contract with Plaintiffs because of their 

immigration status. 

107. Wells Fargo intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 16 of 20
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

17 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte and the Class on the basis of immigration status by denying 

them the opportunity to contract for a loan or other financial products, and in doing so denied them 

the full and equal services of its business. 

108. Wells Fargo’s intentional discrimination against Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz 

Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte and the Class interfered with their right to full and equal 

services and their right to make and enforce contracts for financial products. 

109. Wells Fargo’s policy and practice of denying loans or other financial products 

based on Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte’s and the Class’s 

immigration status harmed Plaintiffs and the Class and constitutes unlawful discrimination in 

violation of Sections 51(b) and 51.5 of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff California LULAC 

has also been harmed, as it has been forced to divert resources from its primary advocacy projects 

in order to assist its members who are adversely affected by their inability to obtain loans or 

financial products from Wells Fargo.

110. Pursuant to the Section 52(a) of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Plaintiffs Perez, 

Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte and the Class are entitled to actual damages 

suffered, statutory damages of up to three times the amount of actual damages suffered per 

violation, but no less than $4,000, and attorney’s fees. Pursuant to Section 52(c) of the Unruh 

Civil Rights Act, Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte and the 

Class are also entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief against such unlawful practices in 

order to prevent future damages, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and to avoid a 

multiplicity of lawsuits.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Unfair Competition Law

(California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.)

111. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in all preceding paragraphs.

112. Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte bring this 

claim on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class. 

113. Plaintiff California LULAC brings this claim on its behalf.

114. Wells Fargo’s policy and practice of denying loans or other financial products to 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 17 of 20
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

18 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte and the Class based on their 

alienage and immigration status harmed Plaintiffs and the Class and constitutes unlawful 

discrimination in violation of Sections 51(b) and 51.5 of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. 

Section 1981. Plaintiff California LULAC has also been harmed, as it has been forced to divert 

resources from its primary advocacy projects in order to assist its members who are adversely 

affected by their inability to obtain student loans or other financial products from Wells Fargo.

115. Wells Fargo’s violations of Sections 51(b) and 51.5 of the Unruh Civil Rights Act 

and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 constitute unfair business practices in violation of Section 17200 of 

the California Unfair Competition Law.

116. Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte and the Class 

are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief against such unlawful practices in order to 

prevent future damages, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and to avoid a multiplicity 

of lawsuits.

117. Under the California Unfair Competition Law, Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz 

Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte and the Class are entitled to injunctive relief and attorney’s 

fees.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Class pray for relief as follows:

118. Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed Class;

119. Designation of Plaintiffs Perez, Acosta, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares 

Villafuerte as a representatives on behalf of the Class;

120. Designation of Plaintiffs’ counsel of record as Class counsel; 

121. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and 

violate Section 1981, the Sections 51(b) and 51.5 of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and Section 

17200 et seq. of the California Unfair Competition Law; 

122. A preliminary and permanent injunction against Wells Fargo and its officers, 

agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 18 of 20
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

19 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

them, from engaging in each of the unlawful policies, practices, customs and usages set forth 

herein; 

123. All damages sustained as a result of Wells Fargo’s conduct, including damages for 

emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish, according to proof; 

124. Statutory damages to the extent allowable by law;

125. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount commensurate with Wells Fargo’s 

ability to pay and to deter future conduct; 

126. Injunctive remedies including restitution; 

127. Costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees to the extent allowable 

by law; 

128. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and 

129. Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems necessary, just, 

and proper. 

Dated: San Francisco, California Respectfully submitted,

August 18, 2017 

By: /s/ Jahan C. Sagafi

Jahan C. Sagafi

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 

Jahan C. Sagafi 

Cal. Bar No. 224887 

Nantiya Ruan 

Cal. Bar No. 230488 

One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 638-8800 

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 

jsagafi@outtengolden.com 

nr@outtengolden.com 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 19 of 20
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

20 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CASE NO. 17 Civ. 454

Adam T. Klein*

Ossai Miazad*

Michael N. Litrownik* 

Olivia J. Quinto* 

685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor 

New York, NY 10017 

Telephone: (212) 245-1000 

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 

atk@outtengolden.com 

om@outtengolden.com 

mlitrownik@outtengolden.com 

ojq@outtengolden.com 

Patrick David Lopez* 

601 Massachusetts Avenue 

Second Floor West Suite 

Washington DC, 20001 

Telephone: (202) 847-4400 

Facsimile: (202) 847-4410 

pdl@outtengolden.com 

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND

EDUCATIONAL FUND

Thomas A. Saenz 

Victor Viramontes 

634 S. Spring St., 11th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90014 

Telephone: (213) 629-2512 

Facsimile: (213) 629-0266 

tsaenz@maldef.org 

vviramontes@maldef.org 

* pro hac vice application forthcoming

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the proposed Class

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 72 Filed 08/18/17 Page 20 of 20