MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

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

Daniel S. Stromberg* 

Hannah Cole-Chu* 

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 

601 Massachusetts Avenue, 200W 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Telephone: (202) 847-4400 

Facsimile: (202) 847-4410 

dstromberg@outtengolden.com 

hcolechu@outtengolden.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 

Additional counsel listed on signature page 

*admitted pro hac vice 

Ossai Miazad* 

Michael N. Litrownik* 

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 

685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor 

New York, NY 10017 

Telephone: (212) 245-1000 

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 

om@outtengolden.com 

mlitrownik@outtengolden.com 

Thomas A. Saenz (Cal. Bar No. 159430) 

Belinda Escobosa Helzer (Cal. Bar 

No. 214178) 

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 

bescobosa@maldef.org 

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. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL 

ORDER 

Judge: Maxine M. Chesney 

Hearing Date: July 10, 2020 

Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. 

Courtroom: 7, 19th floor 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 1 of 37
 2 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 10, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the 

matter may be heard, in Courtroom 7 on the 19th floor of this Court’s San Francisco Courthouse, 

located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco, California, Plaintiffs Mitzie Perez and 

Sergio Barajas, individually, and Plaintiffs Victoria Rodas, Samuel Tabares Villafuerte, Teresa 

Diaz Vedoy, and Andres Acosta, individually and as class representatives on behalf of the Class, 

will, and hereby do, move this Court for the following relief with respect to the Settlement 

Agreement and Release (attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Ossai Miazad in Support of 

Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval Order) with Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.: 

1. that the Court certify, for settlement purposes only, settlement classes pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3); 

2. that the Court appoint Plaintiffs Rodas, Villafuerte, Vedoy, and Acosta as 

representatives of the Class; 

3. that the Court appoint Plaintiffs’ attorneys as Class Counsel; 

4. that the Court grant preliminary approval of the Settlement; 

5. that the Court approve mailing to the Class Members the proposed Class Notice; 

6. that the Court appoint JND Legal Administration Co. as the Settlement 

Administrator; and 

7. that the Court schedule a hearing for final approval of the Settlement. 

This Motion is made on the grounds that the Settlement is the product of arms-length, 

good-faith negotiations; is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class; and should be preliminarily 

approved, as discussed in the attached memorandum. 

The Motion is based on: this notice; the following memorandum in support of the motion, 

the Miazad declaration and attached Settlement Agreement, the Helzer declaration, the Court’s 

record of this action; all matters of which the Court may take notice; and oral and documentary 

evidence presented at the hearing on the motion. This motion is unopposed by Wells Fargo. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 2 of 37
 3 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

Dated: June 16, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Ossai Miazad 

 Ossai Miazad 

Ossai Miazad* 

Michael N. Litrownik* 

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 

685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor 

New York, NY 10017 

Telephone: (212) 245-1000 

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 

om@outtengolden.com 

mlitrownik@outtengolden.com 

estork@outtengolden.com 

Daniel S. Stromberg* 

Hannah Cole-Chu* 

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 

601 Massachusetts Avenue, 200W 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Telephone: (202) 847-4400 

Facsimile: (202) 847-4410 

dstromberg@outtengolden.com 

hcolechu@outtengolden.com 

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

Rachel Dempsey (Cal. Bar No. 310424) 

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 

One California St., 12th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 638-8800 

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 

jsagafi@outtengolden.com 

rsun@outtengolden.com 

rdempsey@outtengolden.com 

 

Thomas A. Saenz (Cal. Bar No. 159430) 

Belinda Escobosa Helzer (Cal. Bar 

No. 214178) 

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 

bescobosa@maldef.org

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 3 of 37
 4 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

Tanya Gabrielle Pellegrini (Cal. Bar No. 285186) 

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 

1512 14th Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 444-3031 

tpellegrini@maldef.org 

*admitted pro hac vice 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 4 of 37
 i 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .......................................................... 2 

A. Wells Fargo’s Lending Policies Made DACA Recipients Ineligible for 

Credit ......................................................................................................................... 2 

B. Procedural History ..................................................................................................... 3 

III. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ....................................................................................... 6 

A. The Settlement Classes .............................................................................................. 6 

B. Settlement Overview ................................................................................................. 7 

1. Programmatic Relief ..................................................................................... 7 

2. Monetary Relief ............................................................................................. 7 

C. Class Representative and Individual Plaintiff Service Awards ............................... 11 

D. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs ....................................................................................... 12 

E. Settlement Administration Costs ............................................................................. 13 

F. Cy Pres Awardees ................................................................................................... 14 

IV. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 14 

A. Certification of the Rule 23 Classes Is Proper ........................................................ 15 

1. Rule 23(a) Is Satisfied ................................................................................. 15 

2. Certification Is Proper Under Rule 23(b)(3) ............................................... 17 

3. Plaintiffs’ Counsel Should Be Appointed as Class Counsel ....................... 18 

B. The Settlement Is Fair, Reasonable, And Adequate ................................................ 19 

1. Plaintiffs’ Case Faced Significant Hurdles on Liability and Class 

Certification ................................................................................................. 19 

2. The Settlement Amount Is Appropriate ...................................................... 20 

3. The Extent of Discovery Supports Settlement ............................................ 22 

4. Counsel’s Experience and Views Support Approval .................................. 23 

5. The Parties Participated in Arms-Length Negotiations Before an 

Experienced Neutral Mediator .................................................................... 23 

C. The Proposed Notice Is Clear and Adequate .......................................................... 24

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 5 of 37
 ii 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

V. A FINAL APPROVAL HEARING SHOULD BE SCHEDULED .................................... 25

VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 25

 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 6 of 37
 iii 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases Page(s) 

Abdullah v. U.S. Sec’y Assocs., 

731 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................................... 15 

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 

521 U.S. 591 (1997) ........................................................................................................ 16, 17, 18 

Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 

568 U.S. 455 (2013) .............................................................................................................. 17, 18 

Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 

861 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................................................... 21 

Betancourt v. Advantage Human Resourcing, Inc., 

No. 14 Civ. 01788, 2016 WL 344532 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016) .......................................... 19, 21 

In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 

654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) ....................................................................................................... 12 

Buccellato v. AT&T Operations, Inc., 

No. 10 Civ. 00463, 2011 WL 3348055 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2011) ............................................. 12 

Cancilla v. Ecolab, Inc., 

No. 12 Civ. 3001, 2015 WL 4760318 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2015) .............................................. 19 

Civil Rights Educ. & Enf’t Ctr. v. RLJ Lodging Tr., 

No. 15 Civ. 224, 2016 WL 314400 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2016) .................................................... 15 

Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 

176 F. Supp. 3d 930 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ........................................................................................ 20 

Covillo v. Specialtys Cafe, 

No. 11 Civ. 00594, 2013 WL 5781574 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2013) ............................................. 14 

Cunningham v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 

879 F.2d 481 (9th Cir. 1988) ....................................................................................................... 12 

del Toro Lopez v. Uber Techs., Inc., 

No. 17 Civ. 6255, 2018 WL 5982506 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2018) .............................................. 13 

Donnenfeld v. Petro, Inc., 

 No. 17 Civ. 2310 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2020), ECF No. 80-1 ........................................................ 11 

In re Easysaver Rewards Litig., 

906 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................................... 14 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 7 of 37
 iv 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

Edwards v. Hearst Commc'ns, 

 No. 15 Civ. 9279 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2019) .................................................................................. 11

Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 

285 F.R.D. 492 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ................................................................................................ 18 

Fernandez v. Victoria Secret Stores, LLC, 

No. 06 Civ. 04149, 2008 WL 8150856 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2008) .............................................. 23 

Fulford v. Logitech, Inc., 

No. 08 Civ. 204, 2010 WL 807448 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2010) .................................................... 12 

Galeener v. Source Refrigeration & HVAC, Inc., 

No. 13 Civ. 04960, 2015 WL 12976106 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2015) .......................................... 11 

Glass v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 

No. 06 Civ. 4068, 2007 WL 221862 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2007) .................................................. 12 

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 

150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ......................................................................................... 15, 16, 19 

In re Heritage Bond Litig., 

No. 02 ML 1475, 2005 WL 1594403 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) ................................................ 21 

Johnson v. Triple Leaf Tea Inc., 

No. 14 Civ. 1570, 2015 WL 8943150 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2015) ........................................ 13, 16 

Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 

No. B237282, 2015 WL 661757 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2015) ................................................. 18 

Lewis v. Wells Fargo & Co., 

 No. 08 Civ. 2670 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011) ................................................................................ 12

Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 

151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998) ..................................................................................................... 22 

Ma v. Covidien Holding, Inc., 

No. 12 Civ. 2161, 2014 WL 360196 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014) .................................................. 21 

In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 

213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) ....................................................................................................... 22 

In re MyFord Touch Consumer Litig., 

 No. 13 Civ. 3072 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2019) ................................................................................ 11 

Nat’l Rural Telecomm. Coop. v. DirecTV, Inc., 

221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) .......................................................................................... 14, 23 

In re Painewebber Ltd. P’ships Litig., 

171 F.R.D. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ................................................................................................. 23 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 8 of 37
 v 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

Pappas v. Naked Juice Co of Glendora, Inc., 

No. 11 Civ. 8276, 2014 WL 12382279 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2014) .......................................... 13, 14 

Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 

563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 19, 23 

Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 

944 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................. 1,23 

Ross v. Trex Co., 

No. 09 Civ. 670, 2013 WL 12174133 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013) ............................................... 12 

Ross v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 

No. 07 Civ. 2951, 2010 WL 3833922 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2010) .............................................. 12 

Seguin v. Cty. of Tulare, 

No. 16 Civ. 01262, 2018 WL 1919823 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2018) ............................................. 10 

Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 

904 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1990) ..................................................................................................... 14 

Stevens v. Harper, 

213 F.R.D. 358 (E.D. Cal. 2002) ................................................................................................. 16 

Stovall-Gusman v. W.W. Granger, Inc., 

No. 13 Civ. 2540, 2015 WL 3776765 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2015) ............................................... 21 

In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 

484 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ...................................................................................... 19 

Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp., 

No. 05 Civ. 02520, 2006 WL 2535056 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2006) ............................................ 18 

Tijero v. Aaron Bros., Inc., 

301 F.R.D. 314 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ................................................................................................ 23 

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 

136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) ................................................................................................................ 18 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 

564 U.S. 338 (2011) .................................................................................................................... 16 

Walsh v. CorePower Yoga LLC, 

No. 16 Civ. 05610, 2017 WL 589199 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) ......................................... 17, 19 

Whiteway v. FedEx Kinko’s Office & Print Servs., Inc., 

No. 05 Civ. 2320, 2006 WL 2642528 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2006) .............................................. 18 

Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, 

No. 06 Civ. 05778, 2011 WL 1230826 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011) ............................................... 23 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 9 of 37
 vi 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ..................................................................................................................... passim

Other Authorities

Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, 4 Newberg on Class Actions (4th ed. 2002) .......................... 15 

Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, 4 Newberg on Class Actions (5th ed.) ............................. 18, 19 

Manual for Complex Litigation (4th ed. 2004) ............................................................................... 14 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 10 of 37
 1 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

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

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiffs, five individuals who have lived in California and one who has lived in Texas 

since they were children, were each granted temporary protection from deportation, federal work 

authorization, and Social Security numbers under the June 2012 program known as Deferred 

Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”). After obtaining DACA, work authorization, and 

SSNs, Plaintiffs applied to Wells Fargo for a variety of consumer and small business loans and 

credit cards. Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo denied their applications for credit because they 

were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (“LPRs”). Plaintiffs then, in January 2017, 

brought a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo, alleging lending discrimination based on 

alienage and immigration status. The parties have now entered into a proposed settlement of this 

litigation for significant monetary and programmatic relief. In connection with the settlement, 

Wells Fargo will change its lending policies to make credit and loans available to DACA 

recipients on the same terms and conditions as it offers credit to U.S. citizens, fully eliminating 

the harm challenged by the lawsuit. The settlement also provides for monetary relief totaling 

$18.7 million, comprised of cash payments of at least $4,750,000 that could increase to as much 

as $13,100,000 to class members who submit valid claim forms, as well as $450,000 in 

administration costs, $150,000 in service awards for four class representatives and two individual 

plaintiffs, and $5,000,000 in fees and costs. See Ex. A (Settlement Agreement or SA) §§ 3.3.1; 

3.3.4; 3.37; 15.1; 15.2.1

 

For the reasons set forth below, the proposed Settlement and this Motion readily satisfy 

the requirements of Rule 23, Ninth Circuit precedent, see, e.g., Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 

944 F.3d 1035, 1060 (9th Cir. 2019), and established Northern District practice, including the 

Class Action Settlement Guidance. Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, U.S. Dist. 

Ct. for Northern District Cal., https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural-guidance-forclass-action-settlements/ (last updated Dec. 5, 2018). The parties have zealously litigated the 

 

1

 All exhibits are attached to the accompanying Declaration of Ossai Miazad in Support of 

Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval Order (“Miazad Decl.”) 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 11 of 37
 2 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

complex class certification and liability issues presented by this case, briefing numerous motions 

to dismiss and strike, engaging in extensive fact and expert discovery, and participating in three 

in-person mediation sessions and dozens of phone conferences since June 2018, each supervised 

by Hunter R. Hughes, one of the leading national mediators of complex discrimination class 

actions. Plaintiffs accordingly and respectfully submit that the Court should preliminary approve 

this exceptional settlement, and notice should issue to Class Members to let them make claims, 

object, or opt out, as appropriate. 

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

A. Wells Fargo’s Lending Policies Made DACA Recipients Ineligible for 

Credit. 

DACA, announced by President Obama on June 15, 2012, and promulgated through the 

Department of Homeland Security, allows non-citizens who entered the United States as children 

and who meet certain requirements to apply for work authorization and relief from deportation 

proceedings.2 DACA was promulgated to provide opportunities to young people who came to the 

United States as children and “who want to staff our labs, or start new businesses, or defend our 

country.”3 Its motivating principle was to strengthen its recipients’ ability to actively participate 

in the American economy and contribute to civic life.4 In addition to work authorization, DACA 

recipients are eligible to apply for and receive SSNs, enabling them to identify themselves for 

employment and other contractual purposes.5 

There is no federal or state law or regulation that prohibits banks from lending to noncitizens generally, or DACA recipients specifically, based on their status as non-citizens. Wells 

Fargo, however, maintained lending policies that made DACA recipients facially ineligible for 

 

2

 Remarks on Immigration Reform and Exchange With Reporters, 2012 Daily Comp. Pres. 

Doc. 201200483 (June 15, 2012), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD201200483/html/DCPD-201200483.htm. See generally Memorandum from Janet Napolitano, 

Sec’y of Homeland Sec., on Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who 

Came to the United States as Children (June 15, 2012), https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-

exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf. 3

 Obama, supra note 2. 

4

 Id. 5

 Fact Sheet, Social Security Number and Card – Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, 

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/deferred_action.pdf. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 12 of 37
 3 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

five different types of loans or credit under four different lines of business (“LOBs”): (1) 

unsecured student loans, offered by Educational Financial Services (“EFS”); (2) unsecured credit 

cards and (3) unsecured personal loans, offered by Consumer Financial Services (“CFS”); (4) 

both secured and unsecured small business loans and credit cards, offered by Business Direct 

(now called Small Business Lending); and (5) home mortgages, offered by Home Mortgage. 

Plaintiffs are all DACA recipients living in the United States with valid SSNs who were 

denied the opportunity to be considered for credit from Wells Fargo, pursuant to the lending 

policies described above, because they were not U.S. citizens or LPRs (or, in the case of EFS, 

because they also did not have student visas). Plaintiffs Mitzie Perez and Sergio Barajas, 

residents of California (jointly, “Individual Plaintiffs”), bring claims individually. Plaintiffs 

Victoria Rodas, Samuel Tabares Villafuerte, and Teresa Diaz Vedoy, residents of California, and 

Andres Acosta, resident of Texas (jointly, “Class Representatives”), are proposed class 

representatives on behalf of one or more classes. 

B. Procedural History 

On January 30, 2017, Plaintiff Perez and the California League of United Latin American 

Citizens (“LULAC”) filed a putative class action complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and 

Wells Fargo & Co., with Plaintiff Perez seeking to represent 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. ECF No. 1. During this litigation, Plaintiffs 

amended their complaint four times, dismissed Wells Fargo & Co. as a defendant, added five 

additional individual plaintiffs, dismissed LULAC as a named plaintiff, briefed four motions to 

dismiss or strike, and narrowed their claims, including withdrawing a California Unfair 

Competition Law claim and narrowing their damages theories. ECF Nos. 37, 72, 155, 203, 267. 

Plaintiffs filed their operative complaint in this action, the Fifth Amended Complaint 

(“5AC”), on July 15, 2019. ECF No. 267. In the 5AC, Plaintiffs Perez, Acosta, Barajas, Diaz 

Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte assert claims of alienage discrimination under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1981 and immigration status and alienage discrimination under the California Unruh Civil 

Rights Act, Cal. Civil Code §§ 51 and 52 et seq. Id. ¶¶ 96-118. Plaintiffs sought to represent 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 13 of 37
 4 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

three nationwide classes and two California sub-classes of non-U.S. citizens who resided in the 

United States and held DACA at the time they applied for certain credit products from Wells 

Fargo and were denied those products pursuant to certain internal Wells Fargo denial codes. Id.

¶¶ 78-79. 

The parties have engaged in extensive discovery since August 2017, including discovery 

of (a) emails and other electronic communications; (b) Wells Fargo’s lending, underwriting, and 

credit risk policies, procedures, and processes; and (c) Plaintiffs’ applications with Wells Fargo, 

credit reports and credit information, and applications with other banks. Miazad Decl. ¶ 14. The 

parties exchanged over five rounds of written discovery, including document requests, requests 

for admissions, and interrogatories, and raised 12 discovery disputes with Magistrate Judge 

Laporte. Id. ¶ 13; see also, e.g., ECF Nos. 247, 248, 279. In total, Wells Fargo produced 

approximately 58,783 pages of documents and Plaintiffs produced approximately 10,179 pages of 

documents. Id. ¶ 15. Wells Fargo deposed all six Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs deposed six fact and 

corporate witnesses. Id. ¶ 16. In addition, the parties reach retained three testifying experts—

including consumer credit/finance and immigration law professors and practitioners—who 

prepared expert reports and sat for depositions. Id. ¶ 17. The parties conducted in-person 

mediation sessions with Mr. Hughes on June 19, 2018 and June 19, 2019 but were unable to make 

sufficient progress towards a resolution. Id. ¶¶ 20-21. 

In November 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification, seeking to certify the 

following classes: (i) all DACA residents during the covered period6 who applied or will apply 

for a Wells Fargo student loan and were declined or will be declined under decline code “d01” 

(“EFS class”); (ii) all DACA residents who applied or will apply for an unsecured credit card and 

were declined under decline codes “1409” or “1614,” or for an unsecured personal loan and were 

declined or will be declined under decline code “34N,” or, between January 30, 2015 and 

February 13, 2015 only, decline code “321” (“CFS class”); and (iii) all DACA residents who 

applied for a small business credit card or loan and were declined or will be declined under 

 

6

 The covered period was defined as January 30, 2015 through the present. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 14 of 37
 5 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

decline codes “M93” or “Q14.” ECF No. 289. The Motion for Class Certification also included 

two California sub-classes consisting of: (i) all EFS class members in California during the 

covered period; and (ii) all CFS class members in California during the covered period. Id. The 

decline codes are Wells Fargo’s application database codes that generally reflect credit declines 

because the applicant is not a U.S. citizen or LPR: 

LOB Product Code Reason 

EFS Student loan d01 Applicant does not meet citizenship requirement. 

CFS 

Unsecured 

credit card 1409 Not a permanent United States resident. 

CFS 

Unsecured 

credit card 1614 Unable to verify permanency of residence. 

CFS 

Unsecured 

personal loan 34N Applicant is not a permanent United States resident. 

CFS 

Unsecured 

personal loan 321 

We do not offer credit of this type or on the terms 

requested.7

BD 

Small 

business loan 

or credit card

M93 Product only available to businesses headquartered in the 

U.S., and owned by citizens or permanent residents. 

BD 

Small 

business loan 

or credit card Q14 

Product only available to businesses headquartered in the 

U.S., and owned by and whose debt is guaranteed by 

citizens or permanent residents. 

In December 2019, the parties agreed to stay the case to participate in a third mediation 

before further briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and the parties’ CrossMotions for Summary Judgment. Miazad Decl. ¶ 22. The parties mediated the case with Mr. 

Hughes in Atlanta, Georgia, for a third time, on January 29, 2020, during which they laid the 

groundwork for a settlement in principle. Id. ¶ 23. Over the next five weeks, the parties 

negotiated a term sheet, which they executed on March 4, 2020. Id. ¶ 24. The parties then spent 

over three months negotiating the terms of the complex Settlement Agreement, during which time 

Wells Fargo produced its home mortgage lending policy, which Plaintiffs believe is similar 

enough to student lending and personal lending to include in the Settlement. Id. ¶¶ 25-27. On 

June 16, 2020, the parties executed a long-form Settlement Agreement. Id. ¶ 27. 

 

7

 This denial code is only used to identify class members between January 30, 2015 and 

February 13, 2015. After February 13, 2015, class members are identified by the 34N denial 

code. See ECF No. 247. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 15 of 37
 6 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

III. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 

A. The Settlement Classes 

For settlement purposes only and consistent with the parties’ settlement agreement, 

Plaintiffs seek certification of the following classes, defined as: 

California Class means all individuals who, between January 30, 2015 and the date of 

preliminary approval (or for home mortgage, between January 29, 2018 and the date of 

preliminary approval), held valid and unexpired DACA status, applied for credit from the Wells 

Fargo credit card, student lending, personal lines and loans, or home mortgage lines of business, 

were denied as set forth in the Class Data produced by Wells Fargo, and were California residents 

as set forth in the Class Data produced by Wells Fargo. SA § 1.9.2. 

National Class means all individuals who, between January 30, 2015 and the date of 

preliminary approval (or for home mortgage, between January 29, 2018 and the date of 

preliminary approval), held valid and unexpired DACA status, applied for credit from the Wells 

Fargo credit card, student lending, small business lending, personal lines and loans, or mortgage 

lines of business, were denied as set forth in the Class Data produced by Wells Fargo, and were 

not California residents as set forth in the Class Data produced by Wells Fargo.8

 SA § 1.9.1. 

Because Wells Fargo did not record whether applicants had DACA, its data set listing 

potential Class Members consists of approximately 330,000 applicants in the United States with 

valid SSNs who did not meet Wells Fargo’s citizenship or immigration status requirements—

DACA and non-DACA applicants alike, including work-authorized non-citizens with 

employment visas and recipients of temporary protected status (“TPS”), all of whom are eligible 

for SSNs. However, limiting this data set based on characteristics common to DACA recipients, 

such as U.S. addresses and valid SSNs, suggest that the California and National Classes (i.e., 

those with DACA), comprise at least 50,000 individuals. 

 

8

 Both the National and California Classes limit the relevant period for home mortgage to 

January 29, 2018 through preliminary approval. January 29, 2018 is two years before the parties 

mediated the case for the third time and laid the groundwork for a settlement in principle. 

Excluded from both Classes 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. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 16 of 37
 7 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

B. Settlement Overview 

The settlement provides two important forms of relief for the Class Members: (1) 

programmatic relief under which Wells Fargo will change its lending practices for its credit card, 

student lending, small business lending, personal lines and loans, and mortgage LOBs to extend 

unsecured credit to current and valid DACA recipients on the same terms and conditions as U.S. 

citizens; and (2) a Settlement Fund of $4,750,000 to $13,100,000, depending on the number of 

claimants, to compensate for the harm they allege that they suffered. The parties have agreed that 

the Settlement shall be administered as if governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1715, and Wells Fargo has 

agreed to provide CAFA Notice as required by that statute. 

1. Programmatic Relief 

 This settlement provides exceptional programmatic relief: in connection with the 

settlement, Wells Fargo will change its lending practice for its credit card, student lending, small 

business lending, personal lines and loans, and home mortgage LOBs to extend unsecured credit 

to current DACA recipients on the same terms and conditions as U.S. citizens, so long as there is 

an appropriate product. SA § 3.2.1. Wells Fargo has also agreed to annually provide to Class 

Counsel a written description explaining the status of the Programmatic Relief for a period of two 

years. Id. § 3.2.2. 

While it is difficult to quantify the benefit that this programmatic relief will convey to 

DACA recipients in the years to come, these changes will be extremely valuable. If even 10,000 

DACA recipients nationwide apply for credit each year for the next four years, and the 

availability of such credit is worth $2,000 (half the statutory penalty for depriving someone 

access to loans and credit under the Unruh Act), these changes are worth $80,000,000. Moreover, 

this figure may be conservative, as many more individuals will get even greater economic 

opportunity from these changes in the coming years. 

2. Monetary Relief 

The $18,700,000 settlement amount will cover: (a) up to $13,100,000 in cash payments to 

Class Members; (b) incentive awards of $25,000 for each of the six Plaintiffs, totaling $150,000; 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 17 of 37
 8 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

(c) settlement administration costs, not to exceed $450,000; and (d) up to $5,000,000 in attorneys’ 

fees and costs. SA §§ 3.3.1; 3.3.4; 3.37; 15.1; 15.2. 

Wells Fargo will create separate settlement funds for the California Class and the National 

Class (“California Fund” and “National Fund,” respectively), both of which will be funded based 

on claims made by Class Members. Id. §§ 1.44.1; 1.44.2. Wells Fargo’s Class Data will 

determine how many claims each Class Member may make, i.e., how many times each Class 

Member was denied a loan or credit card in the relevant period. Id. §§ 1.28; 1.47. In other 

words, as long as a Class Member makes one valid claim, they will receive a cash payment for 

each credit denial that appears in the Class Data. Id. For the California Fund, (1) the first 2,000 

Verified Claims9 from California Class Members shall add $2,500 per claim to the fund, up to 

$5,000,000; (2) the next 3,000 Verified Claims from California Class Members shall add $2,000 

per claim to the fund, up to $6,000,000; and (3) the next 2,000 Verified Claims from California 

Class Members shall add $800 per claim to the fund, up to $1,600,000. Id. § 3.3.2. The 

California Fund will have a floor of $4,700,000 and a cap of $12,600,000, depending on the 

number of claimants. Id. § 3.3.4. 

The National Fund will be created by adding $100 to the fund for every Verified Claim 

from National Class Members, up to and not to exceed $500,000. Id. § 3.3.5. The amount in 

each fund will be determined based on Verified Claims and will only be funded up to the number 

of Verified Claims. Id. § 1.44. As explained in detail below, California Class Members who 

submit a Verified Claim shall be paid pro rata from the California Fund and National Class 

Members shall be paid pro rata from the National Fund. Id. §§ 3.3.3; 3.3.6. In other words, 

National Class Members will receive up to $100 per Verified Claim and California Class 

 

9

 “Verified Claim” means a written request, submitted via a Claim Form, submitted by a 

Settlement Class Member to the Settlement Administrator, pursuant to the instructions set forth in 

the Claim Form, including Official Documentation. SA § 1.47. “Verified Claim Form” means a 

Claim Form that is (a) fully completed and properly executed showing the Verified Claimant is 

entitled to Claim Settlement Relief, including a fully completed and properly executed Form W-9, 

(b) timely returned to the Settlement Administrator, (c) validated by the Settlement Administrator 

pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Agreement, and (d) which includes Official 

Documentation. Id. § 1.48. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 18 of 37
 9 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

Members will receive an amount up to $2,500 per claim, depending on the number of Verified 

Claims. 

Following preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, Wells Fargo will provide 

the Settlement Administrator and Class Counsel with the updated Class Data.10 Id. § 7.2. The 

Settlement Administrator will issue notice via U.S. mail and email (where an email address is 

available) to all individuals on the Notice List within 35 days of the preliminary approval order. 

SA § 7.3. Those individuals will have 60 days to make a claim in the settlement or 45 days to 

exclude themselves or file an objection with the Court. Id. §§ 1.6; 1.29; 1.31. 

To make a claim in, opt out of, or object to the settlement, Class Members will be required 

to sign and return a one-page form (“Claim Form”) to the Settlement Administrator. Id. §§ 5.2; 

5.3; 11.1; 12.3. The Claim Form will require the recipient to affirm that they: (1) had valid and 

unexpired DACA status at the time they applied for one of the relevant credit products; (2) were 

denied at least one of those products; and (3) that they have and are prepared to provide official 

documentation to verify that status. Id. §§ 5.2; 5.3. Class Members seeking to opt-out of or 

object to the settlement will, in addition, be asked to demonstrate their current or former valid and 

unexpired DACA status by providing (1) an I-797 Approval Notice from an I-821-D and/or (2) a 

work authorization card containing the code “C-33” (“Official Documentation”). Id. §§ 11.1; 

12.3. Claim Forms may be submitted online or by email or mail. Id. Ex. 2 (Claim Form). 

Consistent with current best practices, the Settlement Administrator will maintain a dual-language 

(English-Spanish) website providing the Notice, Claim Form, Settlement Agreement and 

Exhibits, key motions, and orders. Id. § 7.8. The Claims Administrator will also create a duallanguage (English-Spanish) toll-free phone number. Id. § 6.2. A reminder notice will be issued 

by email only, if available, 30 days into the claims period. Id. § 7.6. 

After final approval of the Settlement, the Settlement Administrator will contact the 

 

10 The Class Data will identify (i) individuals who were denied student loans, credit cards, 

small business loans, personal loans, and home mortgages, including the number of denials of 

each of the preceding credit products; (ii) during the class period; (iii) based on agreed-to denial 

codes related to their residency status; (iv) where the individual provided an SSN, a U.S. address, 

and were not listed as a U.S. citizen or LPR. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 19 of 37
 10 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

individuals who submitted Claim Forms and request documentation to demonstrate that they have 

valid and unexpired DACA status, or had valid DACA status at the time of their denial. Id. 

§ 5.2.2. Upon timely receiving this information, the Settlement Administrator will validate the 

Claim Form and documentation and, if consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, 

will deem the claim to be one or more Verified Claims. Id. If at any point during the claims 

period an individual submits a Claim Form or Official Documentation that the Settlement 

Administrator deems deficient, the Settlement Administrator will promptly notify that individual 

and Class Counsel, and the individual will have 14 days to cure any deficiency. Id. § 5.4. A 

Class Member may make only one Verified Claim per denied application. Id. §§ 5.4.3; 5.3.3. 

Joint or multiple borrowers who are denied on a single application will be treated as a single 

application and their pro rata share will be divided equally per applicant. Id. §§ 5.4.3; 5.3.3. 

 After this phase, the Settlement Administrator will advise Wells Fargo of the amount of 

each Settlement Fund based on the number of Verified Claims. Id. § 3.3.10. Within 21 days of 

receiving notice of the amount of the Settlement Funds, Wells Fargo will transfer those funds to 

the Settlement Administrator, which will issue and mail checks to Class Members. Id. §§ 3.3.2; 

3.3.5. 

In exchange for the consideration described above, each Class Member shall release Wells 

Fargo of any and all claims (the “Released Claims”) relating to Wells Fargo’s denial of their loan 

applications based on alienage, lack of citizenship and/or immigration status, including, but not 

limited to, any claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the California Unruh Act, Cal. Civil Code §§ 51 

and 52 et seq., other state civil rights statutes, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Fair 

Credit Reporting Act.11 SA §§ 1.36; 10. The Class Representatives will also agree to a general 

 

11 Although this release is broader than the claims pled in the complaint, Class Counsel are 

unaware of any additional viable claims it would extinguish. Beyond the Unruh Act, no other 

state law civil rights statutes provide comparable statutory penalties for claims related to the 

denial of Class Members’ loan applications based on alienage, lack of citizenship and/or 

immigration status. These special circumstances justify a broadened release. See, e.g., Seguin v. 

Cty. of Tulare, No. 16 Civ. 01262, 2018 WL 1919823, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2018) (a broad 

release was permissible where the settlements reflected a reasonable compromise achieved 

through negotiation). 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 20 of 37
 11 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

release of all Released Claims against Wells Fargo for claims related to the denial of their loan 

applications. Id. § 1.36; 10.3. 

After consulting with the proposed Settlement Administrator about its experience and, 

based on their communications with Class Members to date and the realities of DACA recipients’ 

lives, Plaintiffs estimate that 5% to 15% of the Class Members will return Claim Forms. See, 

e.g., Donnenfeld v. Petro, Inc., No. 17 Civ. 2310 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2020), ECF No. 80-1 

(8,074/91,807 or 8.6% of class members filed claims); In re MyFord Touch Consumer Litig., No. 

13 Civ. 3072 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2019), ECF No. 542 (claims submitted on behalf of 4.5% of 

class); Edwards v. Hearst Commc’ns, No. 15 Civ. 9279 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2019), ECF No. 310 

(294,748/3,930,421 or 7% of class members filed claims); see also Miazad Decl. ¶ 36. Plaintiffs 

estimate that the return rate for California Class Members will be on the higher end of that range, 

considering the high amount of the settlement award per denial, and that the return rate for 

National Class Members will fall on the lower end of the range. Miazad Decl. ¶ 37. 

C. Class Representative and Individual Plaintiff Service Awards12

The Settlement provides that, subject to Court approval, Wells Fargo will pay Plaintiffs 

Perez, Barajas, Rodas, Villafuerte, Acosta, and Vedoy service awards of $25,000 each. SA 

§ 15.2. These payments are intended to compensate them for (a) the significant time and effort 

over the past three years they have spent on behalf of the Class assisting Class Counsel with the 

prosecution of these claims, (b) the resulting significant value they have conferred to Class 

Members, and (c) the significant exposure and risk they incurred by exposing themselves as 

DACA recipients and taking a leadership role in a lawsuit that has garnered broad media 

coverage.13 See, e.g., Galeener v. Source Refrigeration & HVAC, Inc., No. 13 Civ. 04960, 2015 

 

12 This Section and the next Section preview, at a general level, the more detailed factual and 

legal presentation Plaintiffs will provide in their fee petition and request for approval of Incentive 

Awards to be filed prior to the Final Approval Hearing. 13 See, e.g., Molina, Alejandra, Lawsuit claiming Wells Fargo illegally denied loans to 

DACA beneficiaries can go forward, court says, Aug. 4, 2017, available at: 

https://www.pe.com/2017/08/04/lawsuit-claiming-wells-fargo-illegally-denied-loans-to-dacabeneficiaries-can-go-forward-court-says/; Dinzeo, Maria, Wells Fargo Can’t Duck Dreamers’ 

Claim of Lending Bias, Aug. 4, 2017, available at: https://www.courthousenews.com/wells-fargocant-duck-dreamers-claim-lending-bias/. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 21 of 37
 12 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

WL 12976106, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2015) (Chhabria, J.) ($27,000 and $25,000 to two class 

representatives); Buccellato v. AT&T Operations, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 00463, 2011 WL 3348055, at 

*2 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2011) (Koh, J.) ($20,000 to lead plaintiff); Lewis v. Wells Fargo & Co., 

No. 08 Civ. 2670, slip op. at 4 (N.D. Cal Apr. 29, 2011), ECF No. 315 (Wilken, J.) ($22,000 and 

$20,000 for named plaintiffs); Ross v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 07 Civ. 2951, 2010 WL 

3833922, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2010) (Illston, J.) ($20,000 service award for each of four 

class representatives); Glass v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 06 Civ. 4068, 2007 WL 221862, at *16-

17 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2007) (Chesney, J.) ($25,000 to each of four class representatives). For 

these reasons, the incentive awards are appropriate and do not undermine the adequacy of the 

Plaintiffs as Class Representatives. 

D. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 

The Settlement Agreement allows Class Counsel to request an award of attorneys’ fees 

and expenses of up to $5,000,000. SA § 15.1. In a non-common fund case brought under feeshifting statutes such as Section 1981 and the Unruh Act, the lodestar method for awarding 

attorneys’ fees is appropriate. In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941-42 

(9th Cir. 2011); Ross v. Trex Co., No. 09 Civ. 670, 2013 WL 12174133, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 

2013). The lodestar figure is “presumptively reasonable.” Cunningham v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 

879 F.2d 481, 488 (9th Cir. 1988). Additionally, the fact that the award of attorneys’ fees and 

costs was negotiated separately and will not be paid out of the relief available to the class 

supports a finding that the requested fee award is reasonable. Fulford v. Logitech, Inc., No. 08 

Civ. 204, 2010 WL 807448, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2010) (Chesney, J.). 

Class Counsel’s lodestar in this hotly contested litigation is approximately $5,049,000, 

based on approximately 10,000 attorney hours over the course of three and a half years of 

litigation, and Plaintiffs’ costs are approximately $332,000. Plaintiffs intend to request an award 

of attorneys’ fees and expenses of $5,000,000. Class Counsel have performed substantial work to 

earn this fee, including defeating four motions to dismiss and/or strike the complaint, amending 

the complaint five times, briefing class certification, retaining and preparing three experts, 

engaging in extensive discovery, which led to protracted disputes including approximately 12 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 22 of 37
 13 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

discovery dispute letters filed before Magistrate Judge Laporte, preparing for and attending three 

mediations, and negotiating the complex Settlement. Further, the fees and costs were negotiated 

separately from the Settlement Fund. 

Class Counsel’s lodestar will increase during the coming months while Class Counsel 

continues to work to secure preliminary approval, oversee the dissemination of notice, respond to 

Class Member inquiries, and brief and seek final approval. Johnson v. Triple Leaf Tea Inc., No. 

14 Civ. 1570, 2015 WL 8943150, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2015) (Chesney, J.) (accounting for 

“future attorney time” in decision whether attorneys’ fees were reasonable). 

E. Settlement Administration Costs 

The Settlement Agreement provides that Wells Fargo will pay the cost of a Settlement 

Administrator, up to $450,000. The parties have selected JND Legal Administration Co. (“JND”) 

as Settlement Administrator. The parties selected JND by gathering bids from three settlement 

administrators from a list of four approved settlement administrators proposed by Wells Fargo. 

Miazad Decl. ¶ 47. Because the method of notice and claims payment processes are delineated in 

the Settlement Agreement, no new methods were proposed by the proposed settlement 

administrators, and instead the parties evaluated whether the proposed settlement administrators 

were equipped to handle the notice and claims process as negotiated by the parties. Id. ¶ 48. 

Class Counsel has retained JND to administer the claims process in 14 cases in the past two years, 

including cases with complex claims processes like this one. See, e.g., del Toro Lopez v. Uber 

Techs., Inc., No. 17 Civ, 6255, 2018 WL 5982506, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2018); Miazad 

Decl. ¶ 50 (listing cases JND has worked on with Class Counsel in the past two years). 

JND has agreed to perform all administration work set forth in the Settlement Agreement 

for a will-not-exceed cost of $450,000, which JND anticipates being sufficient to cover the total 

costs of settlement administration. SA § 6. The Settlement Administrator’s maximum fee 

amounts to approximately 2.4% of the $18,600,000 maximum Settlement Fund, which is 

reasonable in light of the amount and complexity of the work to be performed (especially 

processing and verifying the Claim Forms, which will require careful manual review), and is in 

line with settlement administration fees in comparable cases. See, e.g., Pappas v. Naked Juice Co 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 23 of 37
 14 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

of Glendora, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 8276, 2014 WL 12382279, at *19 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2014) 

($816,000 administration fee, equal to 9% of $9 million settlement); Covillo v. Specialtys Cafe, 

No. 11 Civ. 00594, 2013 WL 5781574, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2013) (up to $48,741 

administration fee, equal to 2.4% of $2 million settlement). 

F. Cy Pres Awardees 

 Plaintiffs have negotiated a settlement that requires Wells Fargo to pay at least 

$4,750,000. In the event that the combined payments to Class Members from the California and 

National Settlement Funds is less than this floor, the amount between the total distributions to 

Class Members and $4,750,000 shall be distributed equally between TheDream.US and 

UnidosUS.14 Id. § 3.3.9. TheDream.US is a non-profit that provides college scholarships to 

immigrant youth including DACA recipients and UnidosUS is a non-profit that serves the 

Hispanic community through research, policy analysis, legislative advocacy, and communitylevel programming. Miazad Decl. ¶¶ 59, 61. Both organizations have a national reach and work 

to provide equal opportunity to the DACA community. See In reEasysaver, 906 F.3d at 761-62 

(cy pres recipients should be selected in light of the objectives of the underlying statute and the 

interests of the class). Class Counsel Thomas Saenz served on the Advisory Board of 

TheDream.US but resigned from that Board in June 2020. Id. ¶ 60. Class Counsel do not have 

any other relationships, presently or in the past, with these organizations. Id. ¶ 60, 62.

IV. ARGUMENT 

Settlement approval “involves a two-step process in which the Court first determines 

whether a proposed class action settlement deserves preliminary approval and then, after notice is 

given to class members, whether final approval is warranted.” Nat’l Rural Telecomm. Coop. v. 

DirecTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 525 (C.D. Cal. 2004); see also Manual for Complex Litigation 

§§ 21.632-634 (4th ed. 2004). Preliminary approval requires two elements: First, the court must 

determine that the settlement class meets the requirements for class certification if it has not yet 

 

14 See Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1307 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(holding that cy pres distribution is appropriate “for the limited purpose of distributing the 

unclaimed funds”); In re Easysaver Rewards Litig., 906 F.3d 747, 761 (9th Cir. 2018) (same).

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 24 of 37
 15 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

been certified, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b), and second, the court must determine that the settlement 

is fair, reasonable, and adequate, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1025-26. 

A. Certification of the Rule 23 Classes Is Proper. 

For settlement purposes, the parties agree to certification of the California Class and the 

National Class.15 “The validity of use of a temporary settlement class is not usually questioned.” 

Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, 4 Newberg on Class Actions § 11:22 (4th ed. 2002). The 

relevant factors also weigh in favor of certification. 

1. Rule 23(a) Is Satisfied. 

First, numerosity is met because joinder of Class Members would be impractical. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Wells Fargo’s data on applicants who did not meet its citizenship or 

immigration status requirements – refined based on characteristics common to DACA recipients – 

reveals that the classes here likely consist of thousands of individuals. The Notice List contains 

approximately 330,000 individuals and Class Counsel believe 20-25%, or up to approximately 

80,000 individuals, are DACA recipients who could be National or California Class Members. 

Miazad Decl. ¶¶ 34-35. Further, potential Class Members are “geographically dispersed” 

nationwide, including within California, which supports a finding of numerosity. See Civil Rights 

Educ. & Enf’t Ctr. v. RLJ Lodging Tr., No. 15 Civ. 224, 2016 WL 314400, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 

25, 2016) (noting that “joinder may be impracticable where a class is geographically dispersed”). 

Second, commonality is met because “there are questions of law or fact common to the 

class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). The Supreme Court has stated that the focus is on whether there 

are common issues of fact among class members and whether class treatment will “generate 

common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.” Abdullah v. U.S. Sec’y Assocs.,

 

15 Plaintiffs pled three nationwide classes and two California subclasses in the 5AC, ECF 

No. 267, and in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 289. The Settlement 

Agreement consolidates the three nationwide classes into the National Class and the two 

California subclasses into the California Class. Substantively, the classes are the same; they 

cover the same products offered by the same lines of business within the same time period, and 

both encompass denials made under the same internal Wells Fargo denial codes. The only 

difference is in the inclusion of home mortgage, which Plaintiffs address below. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 25 of 37
 16 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

731 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 

(2011)). Here, common questions include whether Wells Fargo’s lending policies deny Plaintiffs 

and Class Members the opportunity to be considered for credit because of their alienage or 

DACA status and whether Wells Fargo’s lending policies violate Section 1981 or the Unruh Act. 

Further, Plaintiffs assert liability based on uniform lending policies that apply to all Class 

Members.16 

Third, typicality is satisfied. Rule 23 typicality requires a finding that the “claims or 

defenses of the representative parties [be] typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Under the rule’s “permissive” standard, “representative claims are ‘typical’ if 

they are reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members; they need not be 

substantially identical.” Johnson, 2015 WL 8943150, at *3 (quoting Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020). 

Here, the Class Representatives are typical of the classes they propose to represent because (1) 

each lived in California or the United States, (2) each held DACA and a valid SSN when they 

applied for a credit product from one or more of the five Wells Fargo LOBs at issue in this 

Settlement; and (3) each alleged that he or she was denied credit because they were not U.S. 

citizens or LPRs pursuant to Wells Fargo’s policies.17 

Fourth, Plaintiffs have fairly and adequately protected the interests of the class and will 

continue to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The adequacy requirement is met where the class 

representatives: (1) have common, and not antagonistic, interests with unnamed class members, 

and (2) will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel. Hanlon, 150 

F.3d at 1020; see also Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997). 

 

16 See, e.g., Stevens v. Harper, 213 F.R.D. 358, 377 (E.D. Cal. 2002) (in civil rights context, “commonality is satisfied where the lawsuit challenges a system-wide practice or policy that 

affects all of the putative class members”). 

17 At the pleading stage, the Court struck references to home mortgages from the Complaint, 

explaining that Plaintiffs had not identified any plaintiff whose claim was “typical” of putative 

class members who had sought and were denied a home mortgage. ECF No 197. In the course of 

settlement negotiations, Wells Fargo produced the home mortgage policy, which Plaintiffs have 

analyzed and concluded is substantially similar to the student loan and personal loan lines of 

business, such that the theory of liability is typical between Class Representatives and Class 

Members. Miazad Decl. ¶ 26. Moreover, the harm of denial based on DACA status is the same. 

In this context, including home mortgage in the Settlement does not affect typicality. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 26 of 37
 17 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

Adequacy is met because Class Representatives have the same interests as other Class 

Members and have shown that they can fairly and adequately protect Class Members’ interests. 

Like all Class Members, Class Representatives were denied credit by Wells Fargo under specific 

denial codes pursuant to Wells Fargo’s lending policies. Miazad Decl. ¶ 52. Class 

Representatives have no conflicts of interest with the Class Members and, indeed, California 

Class Members stand to benefit substantially from Class Representatives’ pursuit of statutory 

damages on their behalf. Class Representatives (along with Individual Plaintiffs) have vigorously 

represented the interests of their fellow Class Members and devoted substantial time to the 

prosecution of this action, including by responding to extensive discovery, reviewing documents 

produced by Wells Fargo, sitting for depositions, and having numerous phone calls and in-person 

meetings with counsel. Id. ¶ 53. 

In addition, Plaintiffs are represented by adequate counsel. Outten & Golden LLP and the 

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (“MALDEF”), have extensive 

experience litigating complex civil rights and employment class actions and have vigorously 

prosecuted this action on behalf of Plaintiffs through extensive motion practice and fact and 

expert discovery. Miazad Decl. ¶¶ 4-9 (collecting cases); Declaration of Belinda Escobosa 

Helzer (“Helzer Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-9 (same); see also, e.g., Walsh v. CorePower Yoga LLC, No. 16 Civ. 

05610, 2017 WL 589199, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) (“[Outten & Golden] ha[s] a proven 

track record in the prosecution of class actions as they have successfully litigated and tried many 

major class action cases.”). 

For these reasons, Class Counsel satisfy the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a).

2. Certification Is Proper Under Rule 23(b)(3). 

Rule 23(b)(3) requires that common questions predominate over individual ones, and that 

a class action is superior to other available methods for adjudicating the controversy. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 23(b)(3). Both of these requirements are met here. 

The proposed classes, the California Class and the National Class, are sufficiently 

cohesive to satisfy predominance. Amchem, 521 U.S. at 623. Predominance does not require 

“that each element of [a plaintiff’s] claim [is] susceptible to classwide proof.” Amgen Inc. v. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 27 of 37
 18 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 469 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). Rather, “[t]he predominance inquiry ‘asks whether the common, aggregation-enabling, 

issues in the case are more prevalent or important than the non-common, aggregation-defeating, 

individual issues.’” Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1045 (2016) (quoting 

William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 4:50 (5th ed.)). Here, Plaintiffs challenge 

policies that apply to all Class Members. Common questions as to their nature and legality can be 

adjudicated collectively and will drive the resolution of plaintiffs’ claims.18 

Superiority rests on factors like individual class members’ desire to bring individual 

actions and the utility of concentrating the litigation in one forum. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). 

Here, “there is no indication, that class members seek to individually control their cases, that 

individual litigation is already pending in other forums, or that this particular forum is undesirable 

for any reason.” Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 05 Civ. 02520, 2006 WL 2535056, at *11 (N.D. 

Cal. Aug. 31, 2006); see also Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615. Few Class Members would invest the 

time and money, plus the stress inherent in litigation, for a chance to possibly recover modest 

damages. In addition, individual lawsuits from hundreds of plaintiffs would be wasteful and 

inefficient for the court system. See, e.g., Whiteway v. FedEx Kinko’s Office & Print Servs., Inc., 

No. 05 Civ. 2320, 2006 WL 2642528, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2006). Because the class 

mechanism will achieve economies of scale for Class Members, conserve judicial resources, and 

preserve public confidence in the system by avoiding repetitive proceedings and preventing 

inconsistent adjudications, superiority is met. 

3. Plaintiffs’ Counsel Should Be Appointed as Class Counsel. 

Adequacy of class counsel depends on (1) work performed on the matter, (2) experience, 

(3) knowledge of the law, and (4) resources counsel can commit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A). 

 

18 See, e.g., Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 285 F.R.D. 492, 509, 538 (N.D. Cal. 2012) 

(predominance satisfied as to discrimination claims where plaintiffs challenged “specific 

employment practices” that applied “companywide”); cf. Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 

B237282, 2015 WL 661757, at *8, 15 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2015) (affirming class certification 

for Unruh Act claims challenging Wells Fargo practices that resulted in race-based lending 

discrimination); id. at *14 (“Claims that a uniform policy was consistently applied to a group are 

proper for class treatment.”). 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 28 of 37
 19 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

Class Counsel readily satisfy these criteria, as set forth above. See supra Part IV.A.1; see also

Miazad Decl. ¶¶ 4-9; Helzer Decl. ¶¶ 5-9. 

B. The Settlement Is Fair, Reasonable, And Adequate. 

Once the Court has found class certification proper, the next step of the preliminary 

approval process is to assess whether the settlement is “fundamentally fair, adequate, and 

reasonable.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. Typically, the first-stage analysis inquires into “obvious 

deficiencies,” with preliminary approval granted if the settlement is non-collusive and within the 

range of possible final approval. Walsh, 2017 WL 589199, at *6 (quoting In re Tableware 

Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007)).19 

When considering whether to grant approval, courts often “put a good deal of stock in the 

product of an arms-length, non-collusive, negotiated resolution.” Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 

563 F.3d 948, 965 (9th Cir. 2009). Courts may also assess the following factors, which are 

assessed in greater detail at final approval. These factors are: (1) “the strength of the plaintiffs’ 

case,” “the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation,” and “the risk of 

maintaining class action status throughout the trial,” (2) “the amount offered in settlement,” (3) 

“the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings,” and (4) “the experience and 

views of counsel.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. In addition, courts review “the presence of a 

governmental participant” and “the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.” Id. 

The former is not relevant, and the latter cannot be gauged at this stage. 

1. Plaintiffs’ Case Faced Significant Hurdles on Liability and Class 

Certification. 

“Approval of a class settlement is appropriate when ‘there are significant barriers 

plaintiffs must overcome in making their case.’” Betancourt v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 

Inc., No. 14 Civ. 01788, 2016 WL 344532, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016). Plaintiffs face 

substantial obstacles to full recovery. First, liability is far from guaranteed. This litigation—a 

 

19 See also Cancilla v. Ecolab, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 3001, 2015 WL 4760318, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 12, 2015) (focusing preliminary approval analysis on “noncollusive negotiations,” the lack 

of “obvious deficiencies” or “preferential treatment,” and being “with[in] the range of possible 

approval”); Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, 4 Newberg on Class Actions, § 13.15 (5th ed.). 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 29 of 37
 20 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

lending discrimination class action on behalf of DACA recipients—presents a novel theory with 

numerous unsettled issues. Other defendants in cases involving Section 1981 challenges on 

behalf of DACA recipients have argued that DACA recipients are not “lawfully present” in the 

United States to show that they are not members of a protected class under Section 1981 and 

Wells Fargo may raise a similar argument. Wells Fargo may also point to instances in which it 

extended credit to DACA recipients through what it characterizes as an “exceptions process” as 

proof that Wells Fargo does not discriminate against DACA recipients. Wells Fargo could also 

highlight events in Plaintiffs’ credit history to show that they were not qualified for the credit 

products they sought, regardless of their DACA status. Finally, Wells Fargo has vigorously 

contended that its lending policies are justified because DACA—which the current administration 

has attempted to rescind—is a tenuous immigration status and a bank is justified in limiting credit 

to applicants who might be subject to deportation orders at any time from eligibility for credit for 

credit risk, business, compliance, and regulatory reasons. 

Plaintiffs also face obstacles to obtaining class certification. As explained above, 

Plaintiffs cannot identify Class Members from Wells Fargo’s data with certainty, which presents 

manageability issues. Wells Fargo could also argue that Plaintiffs cannot show commonality 

because Wells Fargo did not have an explicit policy that made DACA recipients ineligible based 

on their DACA status for the challenged credit products, or because some applicants would have 

been denied credit regardless of immigration status. 

2. The Settlement Amount Is Appropriate. 

“[P]erhaps the most important factor” courts consider in determining whether to grant 

preliminary approval is “plaintiffs’ expected recovery balanced against the value of the settlement 

offer.” Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 176 F. Supp. 3d 930, 935 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (Chhabria, J.) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Here, the monetary and programmatic relief provide excellent value 

for Class Members. Though the precise amount of the monetary awards per Class Member is not 

yet known, under any scenario the monetary relief under the Settlement is likely to be a high 

percentage of their maximum damages. Similarly, the settlement provides the greatest degree of 

programmatic relief possible. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 30 of 37
 21 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

California Class Members are eligible for individual awards of up to $2,500 per denial of 

a credit application, more than 60% of the statutory damages available under the Unruh Act for 

each discriminatory act. Cal. Civil Code § 52(a) (providing statutory damages of $4,000 per 

violation); Miazad Decl. ¶ 31. This is an excellent result for California Class Members.20 If a 

higher number of California Class Members submit Verified Claim forms – and because 

monetary awards are paid pro rata – individual awards may decrease to $1,800 per claim or 

lower. Miazad Decl. ¶ 32. However, even if 12,000 California Class Members submit Verified 

Claims – a substantially higher response rate than the parties anticipate – that would amount to 

awards of approximately $1,050 each, more than 25% of the $4,000 minimum damages under 

Unruh. Id. In light of the risks of an adverse judgment on the merits or class certification, even 

awards on the lower end of this range provide an excellent value to California Class Members. 

The parties estimate that National Class Members will receive approximately $100 per 

denial. Miazad Decl. ¶ 33. This is an excellent benefit for National Class Members because 

Plaintiffs withdrew their claims for actual and economic damages under Section 1981 on behalf 

of the nationwide class of DACA recipients after consulting with economic experts who 

determined that significant obstacles existed to valuing and modeling actual or economic 

damages for a denial of credit where Class Members could potentially obtain the same credit 

elsewhere, or turn to savings accounts or loans from family members, as some Plaintiffs did. Id. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs narrowed their damages claim under Section 1981 to only request 

equitable and injunctive relief. ECF No. 267 (5AC) ¶ 95. As nominal damages are considered 

“symbolic in nature,” Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 861 F.3d 853, 872 (9th Cir. 2017), the 

monetary relief obtained for National Class Members in this action is excellent. 

 

20 See, e.g., Betancourt, No. 14 Civ. 1788, 2016 WL 344532, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan 28, 2016) 

(granting final approval of settlement providing approximately 9.7% of total maximum potential 

recovery if class members had prevailed on all claims); Stovall-Gusman v. W.W. Granger, Inc., 

No. 13 Civ. 2540, 2015 WL 3776765, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2015) (finding that a settlement 

constituting 7.3% of plaintiff’s estimated trial award to be “within the range of reasonableness” 

(quoting Ma v. Covidien Holding, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 2161, 2014 WL 360196, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 

31, 2014))); In re Heritage Bond Litig., No. 02 ML 1475, 2005 WL 1594403, at *19 (C.D. Cal. 

June 10, 2005) (calling a recovery of 36% of the total net loss an “exceptional result”). 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 31 of 37
 22 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

Plaintiffs also obtained the maximum degree of programmatic relief that Class Members 

could possibly obtain. Wells Fargo has agreed to extend unsecured credit to current and valid 

DACA recipients on the same terms and conditions as U.S. citizens. In other words, Wells Fargo 

will not consider DACA as a factor in evaluating credit risk or in underwriting, which might 

invariably lead to inferior credit terms. All DACA recipients nationwide—not just Class 

Members—will benefit from this programmatic relief. DACA recipients have a great need for 

access to credit and have encountered significant difficulty in obtaining it.21 As one of the largest 

lenders in the country, the programmatic relief offered by Wells Fargo is a significant benefit to 

Class Members (and DACA recipients nationwide) and is likely better than what could be 

obtained by protracted litigation and trial. 

3. The Extent of Discovery Supports Settlement. 

A settlement requires adequate discovery. The touchstone of the analysis is whether “the 

parties have sufficient information to make an informed decision about settlement,” including 

formal and informal discovery. In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 

2000) (quoting Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 1998)). Here, 

Plaintiffs have litigated these claims zealously for more than three years, conducting robust 

formal discovery along the way. Specifically, Plaintiffs obtained nearly 60,000 pages of 

discovery from Wells Fargo, consisting of emails, lending and underwriting policy and procedure 

documents, and documents relating to exceptions and complaints filed by applicants. Miazad 

Decl. ¶¶ 13-14. Class Counsel deposed nine fact and expert witnesses and also worked closely 

with three experts to analyze various issues implicated in the case, including underwriting and 

immigration. Id. ¶¶ 16-17. Wells Fargo deposed all six Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ three experts, 

and sought extensive written discovery from Plaintiffs, including extensive documentation about 

 

21 More than 800,000 individuals have been approved under DACA in the United States. 

U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., Approximate Active DACA Recipients: Country of Birth 

As of February 28, 2019 at 5, 

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

Immigration%20Forms%20Data/All%20Form%20Types/DACA/2_Approximate_Active_DACA

_Recipients_Demographics_-_Feb_28_2019.pdf. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 32 of 37
 23 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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 credit history and attempts to mitigate their denial of credit with Wells Fargo. Id. ¶¶ 14-17. 

While the parties were negotiating the settlement agreement in this matter, Wells Fargo produced 

its home mortgage policy and the parties met and conferred regarding the details of the policy, 

concluding it was appropriate to include in the settlement. Id. ¶ 26. Thus, the Settlement results 

from Class Counsel’s informed judgment about the strengths and weaknesses of the claims. 

4. Counsel’s Experience and Views Support Approval. 

“Great weight is accorded to the recommendation of counsel, who are most closely 

acquainted with the facts of the underlying litigation.” DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. at 528 

(quoting In re Painewebber Ltd. P’ships Litig., 171 F.R.D. 104, 125 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)). “[P]arties 

represented by competent counsel are better positioned than courts to produce a settlement that 

fairly reflects each party’s expected outcome in litigation[.]” Rodriguez, 563 F.3d at 967. 

Class Counsel are some of the most experienced class action litigators in the country. 

Miazad Decl. ¶¶ 4-9; Helzer Decl. ¶¶ 5-9. Class Counsel specialize in prosecuting complex 

employment and civil rights class actions, and over many years have successfully—and 

unsuccessfully—litigated many such cases, putting them in a strong position to weigh the 

strengths and weaknesses of Plaintiffs’ claims and Wells Fargo’s defenses. Id.; see also Ex. B 

(listing comparable past distributions). Based on their extensive experience, Class Counsel 

believe that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. 

5. The Parties Participated in Arms-Length Negotiations Before an 

Experienced Neutral Mediator.

A settlement reached “in good faith after a well-informed arms-length negotiation” is 

presumed to be fair. Fernandez v. Victoria Secret Stores, LLC, No. 06 Civ. 04149, 2008 WL 

8150856, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2008).22 Here, the settlement easily meets the rigorous 

scrutiny required in this District and by Roes, 1–2, for both substantive and procedural reasons. 

First, the Settlement is substantively strong, providing excellent monetary relief and robust 

programmatic relief. Second, the Settlement is procedurally sound, (a) having been reached after 

 

22 See also Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, No. 06 Civ. 05778, 2011 WL 1230826, at *6 

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011); Tijero v. Aaron Bros., Inc., 301 F.R.D. 314, 325 (N.D. Cal. 2013) 

(private mediation “support[s] the conclusion that the settlement process was not collusive”).

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 33 of 37
 24 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

extensive, hard-fought adversarial litigation, with extensive discovery and motion practice, (b) 

with no parallel litigation that could give rise to reverse auction concerns, and (c) after three 

separate mediation sessions over the course of a year and a half, overseen by a highly experienced 

mediator with particular expertise in complex class actions. Miazad Decl. ¶¶ 10-27; 41. 

C. The Proposed Notice Is Clear and Adequate. 

The proposed Notice is the “best notice that is practicable under the circumstances.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B), and is “reasonable,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). The Notice and Claim Form 

are consistent with Northern District of California’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action 

Settlements and modern best practices set forth by the Federal Judicial Center.23 The Notice and 

Claim Form are easily understandable and include: (1) contact information for Class Counsel to 

answer questions; (2) the address for a website maintained by the Settlement Administrator that 

will link to important documents in the case; and (3) instructions on how to access the case docket 

via PACER or in person at any of the Court’s locations. The Notice will state the date of the final 

approval hearing, that the date may change without further notice to the Class, and that Class 

Members should check the settlement website or the Court’s PACER site to confirm that the date 

has not been changed. The Notice explains the deadlines for objecting, opting out, and 

submitting a Claim Form. SA Ex. 1. 

The Claim Form is clear, user-friendly, and focused on a few key relevant facts to which 

Class Members have ready access. The Claim Form is helpfully pre-printed with individualized 

information in customized paper copies. It will also be available online, so that Class Members 

can submit Claim Forms via a secure online submission form. In addition, Class Counsel will 

assist the Settlement Administrator in responding to Class Member questions, helping them file 

Claim Forms and navigate the process generally. 

 

23 See Illustrative Forms of Class Action Notices: Overview, Fed. Judicial Ctr., 

https://www.fjc.gov/content/301253/illustrative-forms-class-action-notices-introduction (last 

visited June 16, 2020). 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 34 of 37
 25 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

V. A FINAL APPROVAL HEARING SHOULD BE SCHEDULED. 

Plaintiffs, in consultation with Wells Fargo, propose the following schedule for finalizing 

and implementing the Settlement: 

Event Proposed Date 

Preliminary Approval Hearing July 10, 2020 

Court enters Preliminary Approval Order* July 24, 2020 

WF provides class list data to Settlement Administrator August 7, 2020 

Settlement Administrator disseminates Notice August 28, 2020 

Settlement Administrator sends Reminder notices September 25, 2020 

Deadline for Class Members to file Claim Forms, opt 

out, and/or object 

October 12, 2020 

Plaintiffs file Fee and Incentive Award Motions October 23, 2020 

Deadline for Class Members to file Claim Forms October 27, 2020

WF deadline to terminate settlement November 12, 2020 

Plaintiffs file Final Approval motion November 13, 2020 

Final Approval Hearing December 4, 2020 

Final Approval Order* December 18, 2020 

Effective Date (assuming no appeals)* January 22, 2021 

WF funds Settlement April 12, 2021 

Settlement Administrator mails checks to Class April 17, 2021 

 * Assumed date for purposes of calculating subsequent dates. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: (1) certify, for 

settlement purposes only, settlement classes pursuant to Federal Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3); (2) 

grant preliminary approval of the Settlement; (3) appoint Plaintiffs Rodas, Villafuerte, Vedoy, 

and Acosta as the Class Representatives, their counsel as Class Counsel, and JND as Settlement 

Administrator; (4) approve mailing to the Class Members the proposed Notice; and (5) schedule a 

hearing for final approval of the Settlement. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 35 of 37
 26 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

Dated: June 16, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Ossai Miazad 

 Ossai Miazad 

Ossai Miazad* 

Michael N. Litrownik* 

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 

685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor 

New York, NY 10017 

Telephone: (212) 245-1000 

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 

om@outtengolden.com 

mlitrownik@outtengolden.com 

estork@outtengolden.com 

Daniel S. Stromberg* 

Hannah Cole-Chu* 

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 

601 Massachusetts Avenue 

Second Floor West Suite 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Telephone: (202) 847-4400 

Facsimile: (202) 847-4410 

dstromberg@outtengolden.com 

hcolechu@outtengolden.com 

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

Rachel Dempsey (Cal. Bar No. 310424) 

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 

One California St., 12th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 638-8800 

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 

jsagafi@outtengolden.com 

rsun@outtengolden.com 

rdempsey@outtengolden.com 

Thomas A. Saenz (Cal. Bar No. 159430) 

Belinda Escobosa Helzer (Cal. Bar 

No. 214178) 

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 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 36 of 37
 27 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

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

tsaenz@maldef.org 

bescobosa@maldef.org 

Tanya Gabrielle Pellegrini (Cal. Bar No. 

285186) 

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 

1512 14th Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 444-3031 

tpellegrini@maldef.org 

*admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed 

Class

 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 324 Filed 06/16/20 Page 37 of 37