WELLS FARGO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INCREASE PAGE LIMIT FOR WELLS 

FARGO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

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

MCGUIREWOODS LLP 

JAMIE D. WELLS SBN #290827 

Two Embarcadero Center 

Suite 1300 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3821 

Telephone: 415.844.9944 

Facsimile: 415.844.9922 

MARY J. HACKETT 

K. ISSAC DEVYVER 

KARLA L. JOHNSON 

Tower Two-Sixty 

260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800 

Pittsburgh, PA 15222 

Telephone: 412-667-6000 

Facsimile: 412-667-6050 

Attorneys for Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

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, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 

 Defendants. 

 

Case No. 3:17-cv-454-MMC (JCS) 

WELLS FARGO’S ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INCREASE 

PAGE LIMIT FOR WELLS FARGO’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 295 Filed 11/07/19 Page 1 of 5
 1 

WELLS FARGO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INCREASE PAGE LIMIT FOR WELLS 

FARGO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

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

WELLS FARGO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INCREASE PAGE 

LIMIT FOR WELLS FARGO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2(b) and 7-11, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells 

Fargo”) respectfully moves the Court to increase the page limit from 25 pages to 45 pages for 

Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which will be filed on or before December 16, 

2019. Wells Fargo will agree to a reciprocal number of pages for Plaintiffs’ Opposition. This 

Motion is supported by the Declaration of K. Issac deVyver. 

 There is good cause for the Court to grant Wells Fargo leave to file a Motion for Summary 

Judgment not to exceed 45 pages. This case, which has been pending for almost three years and 

has 294 docket entries, is a complex one. Named Plaintiffs Perez, Rodas, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, 

Villafuerte, and Acosta, each of whom is a DACA recipient, brought this class action lawsuit 

accusing Wells Fargo of lending discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”) 

and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code §§ 51 and 52 et seq. (“Unruh”). Plaintiffs 

are challenging Wells Fargo’s lending policies and underwriting guidelines as they relate to four 

different lines of business: student lending, credit card, small business lending, and personal lines 

and loans. 

Wells Fargo intends to move for summary judgment on each of the six Plaintiff’s claims 

and on Plaintiffs’ overarching theory that Wells Fargo’s lending policies are discriminatory 

against DACA recipients. In essence, Plaintiffs have brought six individual lawsuits and, in order 

to explain the reasons that Wells Fargo is entitled to summary judgment, the bank must spend 1-3 

pages per Plaintiff outlining: (1) the circumstances around each Plaintiff’s application for credit 

(and, in some cases, certain Plaintiffs never actually applied), and (2) why each Plaintiff failed to 

show that he or she was otherwise qualified for the credit allegedly sought from Wells Fargo or 

that other, similarly situated non-DACA recipients were provided credit on terms Plaintiffs should 

have received. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 295 Filed 11/07/19 Page 2 of 5
 2 

WELLS FARGO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INCREASE PAGE LIMIT FOR WELLS 

FARGO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 In addition, because Plaintiffs have challenged Wells Fargo’s lending policies and 

underwriting guidelines as they relate to four different lines of business, the bank needs to explain 

how the policies and guidelines for each line of business operate and why they do not discriminate 

against DACA recipients. Throughout the course of this case, Plaintiffs have sought to depict 

Wells Fargo’s lending policies and underwriting guidelines as a single policy that “categorically 

exclude” DACA recipients from applying for certain types of credit. Not so. There are multiple 

lending policies and underwriting guidelines for each of the four lines of business and Wells Fargo 

requires additional pages to show that Plaintiffs are inaccurately portraying the policies and 

guidelines, and explain how those policies and guidelines do in fact allow for lending all types of 

credit, both secured and unsecured, to DACA recipients. Wells Fargo also needs the additional 

pages to provide examples of when and how Wells Fargo has extended unsecured credit to DACA 

recipients, including that Wells Fargo extended an unsecured credit card to one of the named 

Plaintiffs, Victoria Rodas, after she became a DACA recipient. 

Relatedly, in addition to the fact that Wells Fargo’s lending policies and underwriting 

guidelines are not facially discriminatory, Wells Fargo requires additional pages to explain why its 

policies and guidelines satisfy Section 1981’s legitimate non-discriminatory business reason 

defense and Unruh’s business justification and compelling public policy defense. While those 

defenses are similar, each requires a different analysis employing a separate legal standard. 

 Finally, Wells Fargo needs additional pages to explain Deferred Action for Childhood 

Arrivals, or DACA, and the lending risks associated with DACA. Although DACA is regularly 

discussed in the media, what DACA is, and the rights it does (or does not) provide to recipients, is 

generally misunderstood. Additional pages are essential for Wells Fargo explain DACA and how 

a borrower’s DACA status impacts the credit analysis relating to whether and how to extend credit 

to a DACA recipient. There is no dispute that the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and its 

implementing regulations allow lenders, like Wells Fargo, to inquire about, and consider, a 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 295 Filed 11/07/19 Page 3 of 5
 3 

WELLS FARGO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INCREASE PAGE LIMIT FOR WELLS 

FARGO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

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

borrower’s permanence of residence and immigration status when deciding whether to extend 

credit. Wells Fargo requires additional pages to explain how the bank’s policies comply with 

ECOA and, at the same time, Section 1981 and Unruh. 

 All of these reasons demonstrate good cause for the Court to increase the page limit from 

25 pages to 45 pages for Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment. See Garcia v. Soule, No. 

C07-0438 MMC (PR), 2010 WL 728041, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2010) (Chesney, J.) 

(granting motion to exceed page limits for good cause shown). 

 Wells Fargo met and conferred with Plaintiffs by both email and telephone on November 

5, 2019, about the relief requested herein, but Plaintiffs declined to consent. At that time, 

Plaintiffs also indicated that Wells Fargo should be prohibited from moving for summary 

judgment at all until after the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. There is, 

however, no basis for Plaintiffs’ position. From the very beginning of this case, Wells Fargo has 

indicated that it would move for summary judgment prior to, or contemporaneously with, 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. Wells Fargo raised this very issue at the initial case 

management conference on September 22, 2017, and Plaintiffs agreed that Wells Fargo could 

move for summary judgment before the Court set a dispositive motion deadline. To that end, the

parties memorialized their agreement in parties’ Joint Pretrial Preparation Order, which 

specifically provides that “no party shall be prohibited from filing a motion for summary judgment 

before the Court sets a deadline[.]” D.E. 84. That memorialization of the parties’ agreement, 

which the Court endorsed, has been in every subsequent Joint Pretrial Preparation Order. D.E. 

214 (Revised Joint Pretrial Preparation Order); 243 (Order Extending Joint Pretrial Preparation 

Order); 246 (Order Extending Joint Pretrial Preparation Order); 275 (Order Regarding Expert 

Discovery Cutoff and Class Certification Briefing Schedule, Continuing Hearing, Revised Joint 

Pretrial Preparation Order). 

For the foregoing reasons, Wells Fargo respectfully requests that the Court increase the 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 295 Filed 11/07/19 Page 4 of 5
 4 

WELLS FARGO’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INCREASE PAGE LIMIT FOR WELLS 

FARGO’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

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

page limit from 25 pages to 45 pages for Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which 

will be filed on or before December 16, 2019. 

DATED: November 7, 2019 Respectfully submitted, 

MCGUIREWOODS LLP 

 By: /s/ K. Issac deVyver

 K. Issac deVyver 

Attorneys for Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 295 Filed 11/07/19 Page 5 of 5