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

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

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

Relic Sun (Cal. Bar No. 306701)

Rachel Dempsey (Cal. Bar No. 310424)

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

One Embarcadero Center, 38th 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)

Joel Marrero (Cal. Bar No. 275601)

Andrés Gallegos (Cal. Bar No. 313090)

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

jmarrero@maldef.org

agallegos@maldef.org

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

(Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MITZIE PEREZ, ANDRES ACOSTA, 

SERGIO BARAJAS, TERESA DIAZ 

VEDOY, VICTORIA RODAS, and SAMUEL 

TABARES VILLAFUERTE, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, and 

CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF UNITED 

LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

FOR VIOLATIONS OF

42 U.S.C. § 1981 AND CALIFORNIA 

STATE LAW

CLASS ACTION

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

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

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

similarly situated, and the California League of United Latin American Citizens (“California LULAC”) 

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) by their attorneys, bring the following allegations against Defendant Wells 

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

SUMMARY OF CLAIM

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

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

California LULAC bring this case against Wells Fargo for unlawful discrimination in violation of the 

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

as codified by California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq., and the Unfair Competition Law, as codified by 

California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.

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

outright refuses to extend certain types of credit to non-United States citizens who reside in the United 

States and hold either (i) Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) status, (ii) temporary 

protected status, or (iii) another legally protected status under any United States visa. Wells Fargo’s

policies of denying aliens with DACA and other legally protected statuses the right to contract for credit

based on alienage or immigration status is discriminatory and unlawful under Section 1981, Sections 

51(b) and 51.5 of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and Section 17200 of the California Unfair Competition 

Law.

PARTIES

Plaintiff Mitzie Perez

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

California, Riverside, majoring in Gender & Sexuality Studies. 

4. Ms. Perez has authorization to work in the U.S. under DACA.

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 2 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

Plaintiff Andres Acosta 

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

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

University.

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

Plaintiff Sergio Barajas

7. Plaintiff Sergio Barajas is a part-time student at Chabot Community College in Hayward, 

California.

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

Plaintiff Teresa Diaz Vedoy

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

California, majoring in Anthropology. 

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

Plaintiff Victoria Rodas

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

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

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

Plaintiff Samuel Tabares Villafuerte

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

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

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

Plaintiff California LULAC

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

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

action individually as a distinguished Latino civil rights organization and on behalf of its DACA 

recipient members, who are also members of the proposed class. One of LULAC’s primary functions 

and purposes is the improvement and advancement of educational opportunities for persons of Latino 

and Mexican-American descent or nationality and the protection and defense of the civil rights of this 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 3 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

major ethnic and national origin group. As an organization and on behalf of its members, California 

LULAC has championed the rights of Latino students for decades. 

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

Fargo’s policies of denying loans and other Credit products to DACA recipients affects many of 

California LULAC’s members. Additionally, Wells Fargo’s policies impede California LULAC’s 

ability to carry out its mission to advance the educational attainment and civil rights of the Latino 

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

Defendant

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

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

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

state.

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

subsidiary of Wells Fargo. 

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

including private student loans, credit cards, small business loans and credit products, personal loans, 

auto loans, and home mortgages. 

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

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

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

Section 1981 claim.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

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

28 U.S.C. § 1367.

24. This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 

and 2202.

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 4 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

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

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

conducts business within this district. 

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

assignment to the San Francisco Division is proper because a substantial part of the events which give 

rise to the claims asserted herein occurred at Wells Fargo’s headquarters located in San Francisco 

County.

BACKGROUND

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

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

deferred action as embodied in DACA. 

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

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

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

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

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

thereafter. 

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

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

number. In other words, those granted deferred action and in possession of an EAD are legally 

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

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

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

 

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

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

March 6, 2017). 

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

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

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%2

0Forms%20Data/All%20Form%20Types/DACA/I821d_performancedata_fy2016_qtr2.pdf (last visited 

March 6, 2017). 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 5 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

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

products to customers because the customer is an alien. Under federal law, alienage is merely one factor 

among many used to verify enough information to confirm the true identity of the customer.

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

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

the Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering Examination Manual for Money Services, which 

contains a compliance program called the Customer Identification Program (“CIP”), as required by 

section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act, 31 U.S.C. § 5318. Pursuant to CIP, institutions providing 

financial services, including banks, must have a written policy in place to enable them to form a 

reasonable belief that they know the true identity of each customer. The goal behind this requirement is 

to prevent the funding of terrorism both inside and outside of the United States.3

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

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

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

customer before opening an account: 1) name, 2) date of birth, 3) address, and 4) identification number 

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

35. The bank’s procedure must also describe when it will use documents, non-documentary 

methods, or a combination of both. Federal banking agencies expect that banks will review an 

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

include evidence of the customer’s nationality or residence and bear a photograph or similar safeguard.5 

 

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

12 C.F.R. 326.8(b) (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation); 12 C.F.R. 748.2(b) (National Credit Union 

Administration); 12 C.F.R. 21.21 (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency); 12 C.F.R. 563.177(b) 

(Office of Thrift Supervision); and 31 C.F.R. 103.121 (FinCEN).

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

Manual 54 (2010), available at 

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

2017).

5 Id. at 54 n.48.

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 6 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

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

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

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

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

who has applied for a loan application.7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff Perez

38. Ms. Perez is a DACA recipient with an EAD and Social Security number. She is a thirdyear student at UC Riverside. 

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

help pay for cost of attendance and college-incurred debt. After answering a few preliminary questions, 

including that she was seeking a loan to pay student expenses, that she was a junior in college, and that 

she was neither a U.S. citizen nor a permanent resident, she was denied a loan, receiving a message that 

read: “Thank you for your interest in a Wells Fargo student loan. However, based on information you 

provided, we do not have a student loan option that meets your needs. This could be due to the school 

you selected, your field of study, and/or your citizenship status.” 

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

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

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

note that read: “Based on the citizenship status you provided, a U.S. citizen cosigner will be required for 

this application.” Ms. Perez was thus denied a student loan due to her citizenship status. Had Ms. Perez 

been allowed to apply for a loan, she would have had a cosigner available to meet Wells Fargo’s 

cosigner requirement.

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

application because she was forced to finance her cost of attendance using various credit cards with 

interest rates higher than she would have received through a student loan. Ms. Perez suffered further 

 

6 Id. at 52-4.

7 Id. at 53.

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 7 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

losses of money because she was then unable to meet all her credit card payment obligations and 

incurred resulting financial penalties. 

Plaintiff Acosta

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

a real estate company and is a small business owner in Austin, Texas. He has a bachelor’s degree in 

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

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

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

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

assisted him with his application. Mr. Acosta informed the Wells Fargo personal banker that he was 

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

go ahead and submit Mr. Acosta’s application and await a response.

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

him to return to the branch to provide further documentation for his Social Security number. Mr. Acosta 

provided a copy of his Social Security card, his EAD, and his driver’s license.

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

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

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

accounts with Wells Fargo. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acosta’s credit card account without giving him notice and sent his outstanding credit card balance—

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

interest.

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 8 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

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

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

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

reactivated.

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

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

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

50. In the fall of 2015, shortly after Mr. Acosta applied for the commercial equipment loan 

from Wells Fargo, he also began seeking a residential home mortgage to finance the purchase of a 

house. Mr. Acosta considered applying for a mortgage from Wells Fargo, but because Wells Fargo had 

already denied him a commercial equipment loan because of his lack of U.S. citizenship and permanent 

residency status and subsequently canceled his business credit card for the same reason, Mr. Acosta 

believed that applying to Wells Fargo for a home mortgage would be futile. 

51. Mr. Acosta was deterred from applying to Wells Fargo for a residential home mortgage 

because of its discriminatory loan and credit policies. 

52. Mr. Acosta subsequently applied a home mortgage through University Federal Credit 

Union (UFCU) Mortgage Services in approximately February 2016, and received the mortgage in 

approximately March 2016.

Plaintiff Barajas

53. Mr. Barajas is a DACA recipient with an EAD and Social Security number. He is a parttime student at Chabot Community College in Hayward, California, pursuing an Associate’s degree in 

Nursing.

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

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

checking and savings account with Wells Fargo, that he could also obtain a credit card from the bank. 

Mr. Barajas wanted to use the credit card to pay for his educational expenses, such as tuition and books, 

so that he could attend school full-time. Full-time tuition was then approximately $2,000 per semester.

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 9 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

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

banker.

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

for his Social Security number.

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

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

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

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

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

his credit card application. Left with no choice, Mr. Barajas instructed the Wells Fargo representative to 

cancel his application.

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

application because he was forced to withdraw approximately $600 from his savings account to pay for 

his tuition. 

Plaintiff Diaz Vedoy

60. Ms. Diaz Vedoy is a DACA recipient with an EAD. She is an undergraduate student at 

Cerritos College. 

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

seeking a personal loan for approximately $6,000 and a credit card to help pay for college-incurred debt 

and for her parents’ immigration application. Ms. Diaz Vedoy’s parents’ immigration application cost 

approximately $5,000, inclusive of attorneys’ fees, and Ms. Vedoy also wanted to use the Wells Fargo 

credit card to consolidate the balances from three other cards and save on interest rate payments.

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

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

provide a copy of her Social Security card. 

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

with her Social Security card. A Wells Fargo employee made a photocopy of Ms. Diaz Vedoy’s Social 

Security card and returned it to her. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 10 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

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

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

she was “not a permanent United States resident.”

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

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

application and cover other college-related expenses on credit cards with higher interest rates. 

Plaintiff Rodas

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

second-year graduate student at LMU, studying counseling.

67. In approximately July 2014, Ms. Rodas applied online to Wells Fargo for an auto loan. 

Ms. Rodas had DACA status and an EAD and Social Security number at the time she submitted this 

application. Shortly after she applied online, Ms. Rodas recalls following up on her application in 

person at a Wells Fargo branch, where she was told that her Social Security number could not be 

validated in their system. As a result, Wells Fargo subsequently denied her application. 

68. Ms. Rodas believes that Wells Fargo’s denial of her auto loan was based on Wells 

Fargo’s discriminatory policies, including the policy pursuant to which she was denied a student loan. 

69. The reason Wells Fargo denied Ms. Rodas an auto loan in July 2014 was because she 

was neither a U.S. citizen nor permanent resident, and therefore did not have the “right” kind of Social 

Security number.

70. In early June 2016, Ms. Rodas contacted Wells Fargo to inquire about applying for a 

student loan to pay for her summer session. The Wells Fargo representative informed Ms. Rodas that 

she would need a co-signer because she was not a U.S. citizen, and that she would need to fill out her 

application online.

71. Soon thereafter, Ms. Rodas submitted a Wells Fargo student loan application online. She 

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

Security card.

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

with Ms. Rodas’s application.

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 11 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

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

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

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

with those forms. The Wells Fargo representative suggested that she contact LMU and ask if they 

would assist her in obtaining an S-1 visa for international students. At Wells Fargo’s behest, Ms. Rodas 

contacted LMU to inquire about the S-1 visa and LMU told her she was not qualified for such a visa. 

Ms. Rodas then resubmitted information to Wells Fargo regarding her DACA status.

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

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

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

the mail.

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

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

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

much money, Ms. Rodas was also forced to work more hours at her job, cutting into her time for 

academic studies and forcing her to only take one class during the Fall semester.

Plaintiff Tabares Villafuerte

76. Mr. Tabares Villafuerte is a DACA recipient with an EAD. He is a third-year student at 

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California. 

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

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

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

the Wells Fargo branch office, he later received a telephone call from the personal banker asking him to 

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

78. Mr. Tabares Villafuerte returned soon thereafter to the Wells Fargo branch office with his 

Social Security card. The Wells Fargo representative made a photocopy of Mr. Tabares Villafuerte’s 

Social Security card, as well as his work authorization card and driver’s license, and returned them to 

him. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 12 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

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

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

number was “a different kind of social.” Then a few days later, he received a letter dated January 30, 

2017, from Wells Fargo stating that his application for a credit card was denied because he was “not a 

permanent United States resident.”

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

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

his educational expenses.

Wells Fargo’s Policies Are Unlawful and Harm Plaintiffs

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

California LULAC an opportunity to contract for credit because of its arbitrary citizenship requirements 

is a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

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

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

contract for credit violates California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

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

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

contract for credit violates the California Unfair Competition Law.

84. In addition, Wells Fargo’s unlawful policies harm California LULAC’s ability to carry 

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

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

products from Wells Fargo.

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

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 13 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

86. Plaintiffs Perez, Acosta, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte bring their 

class allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of six classes, each consisting

of all non-United States citizens who resided in the United States and who held either (i) DACA status, 

(ii) temporary protected status, or (iii) another legally protected status under any United States visa at 

the relevant time they applied or attempted to apply for credit from Wells Fargo (“Covered Non-Citizen

Residents”) from January 30, 2013 through the date of final judgment in this action (“Covered Period”),

defined as follows: 

a. All Covered Non-Citizen Residents who applied or attempted to apply for a Wells 

Fargo student loan and did not receive that loan during the Covered Period (the 

“Student Loan Class”);

b. All Covered Non-Citizen Residents who applied or attempted to apply for a Wells 

Fargo unsecured credit card and did not receive that credit card during the Covered 

Period (the “Credit Card Class”); 

c. All Covered Non-Citizen Residents who held a 25% or greater ownership interest in a 

business and applied or attempted to apply for a Wells Fargo Business Direct credit 

product for that business and did not receive that credit product during the Covered 

Period (the “Business Direct Class”); 

d. All Covered Non-Citizen Residents who applied, attempted to apply for a Wells 

Fargo personal loan and did not receive that personal loan during the Covered Period 

(the “Personal Loan Class”);

e. All Covered Non-Citizen Residents who applied or attempted to apply for a Wells 

Fargo automobile loan and did not receive that automobile loan during the Covered 

Period (the “Auto Loan Class”);

f. All Covered Non-Citizen Residents who applied or attempted to apply for a Wells 

Fargo residential home mortgage and did not receive that home mortgage during the 

Covered Period, or who were deterred from applying to Wells Fargo for a residential 

home mortgage during the Covered Period (the “Home Mortgage Class”);

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 14 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

87. Plaintiffs Perez and Rodas are members of the Student Loan Class. 

88. Plaintiffs Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, and Tabares Villafuerte are members of the Credit Card 

Class. 

89. Plaintiff Acosta is a member of the Business Direct Class and the Home Mortgage Class. 

90. Plaintiff Diaz Vedoy is a member of the Personal Loan Class. 

91. Plaintiff Rodas is a member of the Auto Loan Class.

92. Upon information and belief, Class Members in each of the six classes are so numerous 

that joinder of all of them is impracticable. Plaintiffs believe there are hundreds of Class Members in 

each of the six classes. Wells Fargo has offices throughout the United States and is one of the largest 

consumer lenders in the country, USCIS has approved over 1.3 million initial and renewal requests for 

DACA, and several hundred thousand individuals have held temporary protected status or legally 

protected status under U.S. visas. Plaintiffs do not know the precise number of Class Members in each 

class as this information is in Wells Fargo’s possession.

93. There are questions of law and fact common to the six classes, and these questions 

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

each class, among others: (1) whether Wells Fargo maintains policies that categorically exclude

Plaintiffs and Class Members outright from credit because of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ alienage or 

immigration status; (2) whether Wells Fargo’s policies as set forth above deprives Plaintiffs and Class 

Members of the right to contract in violation of Section 1981; (3) whether Wells Fargo’s policies as set 

forth above deprive Plaintiffs and Class Members in the Student Loan, Credit Card, Personal Loan and 

Auto Loan classes of rights under the Unruh Civil Rights Act; (4) whether Wells Fargo’s policies as set 

forth above deprive Plaintiffs and Class Members in the Student Loan, Credit Card, Personal Loan, and 

Auto Loan classes of rights under the California Unfair Competition Law; (5) whether Plaintiffs and the 

Class Members suffered harm by reason of Wells Fargo’s unlawful policies; (6) whether Plaintiffs and 

Class Members are entitled to compensatory damages; (7) whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are 

entitled to punitive damages; (8) what equitable and injunctive relief for each of the six classes is 

warranted; and (9) the scope of a resulting permanent injunction.

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 15 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

94. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class Members in each of the six

classes: (1) Plaintiffs were within the jurisdiction of the United States and held legally protected status; 

(2) Plaintiffs applied, attempted to apply, or were deterred from applying for credit from Wells Fargo; 

and (3) Plaintiffs did not receive that credit because of their alienage or immigration status. Each of 

these claims is substantially shared by every Class Member in each of the six Classes. Each of the 

claims arises from the same course of conduct by Wells Fargo, and the relief sought is common.

95. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class 

Members in each of the six classes. Plaintiffs have no conflict with any Class Member. Plaintiffs are 

committed to the goal of having Wells Fargo change its business practices to stop discriminating against 

Plaintiffs and others who hold DACA status, temporary protected status, or other legally protected 

statuses. 

96. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex discrimination 

class actions.

97. The universe of people affected by Wells Fargo’s unlawful policies is ascertainable 

through Wells Fargo’s company records and its website records, logs, and data and therefore each of the

six proposed classes is ascertainable. 

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

Fargo has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to each of the six classes, making 

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

Wells Fargo excludes Class Members in each of the six classes outright from credit due to alienage or 

immigration status. The Class Members in each of the six classes are entitled to injunctive relief to end 

Wells Fargo’s common, unfair, and discriminatory policies and other make-whole relief. 

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

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

Members in each of the six classes, and because a class action is superior to other available methods for 

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

Class Members have been damaged and are entitled to recovery because of Wells Fargo’s common, 

unfair, and discriminatory policies. Damages are capable of measurement on a classwide basis. The 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 16 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

propriety and amount of punitive damages are based on Wells Fargo’s conduct, making these issues 

common each of the six classes. Plaintiffs and the Class Members will rely on common evidence to 

resolve their legal and factual questions, including applicable credit policies in the relevant period. 

There are no pending actions raising similar claims. Wells Fargo engages in continuous, permanent, and 

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

as a class action.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Alienage Discrimination 

(42 U.S.C. § 1981)

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

101. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each of the six classes. 

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

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

104. Plaintiffs are aliens.

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

entitled to the full and equal benefits of the law. 

106. Wells Fargo intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Class Members in each 

of the six classes because of alienage by denying them the opportunity to contract for credit, or by 

deterring them from applying for credit in the first place. 

107. Wells Fargo’s intentional discrimination against Plaintiffs and the Class Members in each 

of the six classes interfered with their right to make and enforce contracts for credit. 

108. Wells Fargo’s policies of denying credit based on Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’

alienage harmed Plaintiffs and the Class Members and constitutes unlawful alienage discrimination in 

the making and enforcing of contracts in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff California LULAC has 

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

to assist its members who are adversely affected by their inability to obtain loans or other credit 

products from Wells Fargo.

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

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

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 17 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

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

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

omissions.

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

Members substantial losses in earnings and other work benefits.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act

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

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

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

their own behalf and on behalf of the Class Members in the Student Loan Class, Credit Card Class,

Personal Loan Class and Auto Loan Class. 

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

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

the jurisdiction of the United States.

115. Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte are aliens who hold 

DACA status. 

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

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

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

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

immigration status. 

117. Wells Fargo intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, 

Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte and the Class Members in the Student Loan Class, Credit Card Class, 

Personal Loan Class and Auto Loan Class on the basis of immigration status by denying them the 

opportunity to contract for credit, and in doing so denied them the full and equal services of its business. 

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

Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte and the Class Members in the Student Loan Class, Credit Card Class, 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 18 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

and Personal Loan Class and Auto Loan Class interfered with their right to full and equal services and 

their right to make and enforce contracts for credit. 

119. Wells Fargo’s policies of denying credit based on the immigration status of Plaintiffs

Perez, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte, and the Class Members in the Student Loan 

Class, Credit Card Class, Personal Loan Class and Auto Loan Class harmed Plaintiffs and the Class

Members and constitutes unlawful discrimination in violation of Sections 51(b) and 51.5 of the Unruh 

Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff California LULAC has also been harmed, as it has been forced to divert 

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

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

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

Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte and the Class Members in the Student Loan Class, Credit 

Card Class, Personal Loan Class and Auto Loan Class are entitled to actual damages suffered, statutory 

damages of up to three times the amount of actual damages suffered per violation, but no less than 

$4,000, and attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to Section 52(c) of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Plaintiffs Perez, 

Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte and the Class Members in the Student Loan Class, 

Credit Card Class, Personal Loan Class and Auto Loan Class are also entitled to injunctive and other 

equitable relief against such unlawful practices in order to prevent future damages, for which there is no 

adequate remedy at law, and to avoid a multiplicity of lawsuits.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Unfair Competition Law

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

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

122. Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte bring this claim on 

their own behalf and on behalf of the Class Members in the Student Loan Class, Credit Card Class, 

Personal Loan Class and Auto Loan Class. 

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

124. Wells Fargo’s policies of denying credit to Plaintiffs Perez, Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, Rodas, 

and Tabares Villafuerte and the Class Members in the Student Loan Class, Credit Card Class, Personal 

Loan Class and Auto Loan Class based on their alienage and immigration status harmed Plaintiffs and 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 19 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

the Class and constitutes unlawful discrimination in violation of Sections 51(b) and 51.5 of the Unruh 

Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. Plaintiff California LULAC has also been harmed, as it 

has been forced to divert resources from its primary advocacy projects in order to assist its members 

who are adversely affected by their inability to obtain student loans or other financial products from 

Wells Fargo.

125. Wells Fargo’s violations of Sections 51(b) and 51.5 of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and 42 

U.S.C. § 1981 constitute unfair business practices in violation of Section 17200 of the California Unfair 

Competition Law.

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

Members in the Student Loan Class, Credit Card Class, Personal Loan Class and Auto Loan Class are 

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

damages, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and to avoid a multiplicity of lawsuits.

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

Rodas, and Tabares Villafuerte and the Class Members in the Student Loan Class, Credit Card Class, 

Personal Loan Class and Auto Loan Class are entitled to injunctive relief and attorney’s fees.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Class Members in each of the six classes pray for relief as 

follows:

128. Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed Class Members in the 

Student Loan Class, Credit Card Class, Business Direct Class, Personal Loan Class, Auto Loan Class, 

and Home Mortgage Class.

129. Designation of Plaintiffs Perez and Rodas as representatives on behalf of the Student 

Loan Class. 

130. Designation of Plaintiffs Barajas, Diaz Vedoy, and Tabares Villafuerte as representatives 

on behalf of the Credit Card Class. 

131. Designation of Plaintiff Acosta as a representative on behalf of the Business Direct Class. 

Designation of Plaintiff Diaz Vedoy as a representative on behalf of the Personal Loan Class. 

132. Designation of Plaintiff Rodas as a representative on behalf of the Auto Loan Class.

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 20 of 22
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

133. Designation of Plaintiff Acosta as a representative on behalf of the Home Mortgage 

Class. 

134. Designation of Plaintiffs’ counsel of record as Class Counsel; 

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

Section 1981, the Sections 51(b) and 51.5 of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and Section 17200 et seq. of 

the California Unfair Competition Law; 

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

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

engaging in each of the unlawful policies, practices, customs and usages set forth herein; 

137. All damages sustained as a result of Wells Fargo’s conduct, according to proof; 

138. Statutory damages to the extent allowable by law;

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

to pay and to deter future conduct;

140. Injunctive remedies including restitution;

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

law; 

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

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

proper.

Dated: Washington, DC Respectfully submitted,

May 24, 2018

By: /s/ Patrick David Lopez

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

Patrick David Lopez*

Daniel S. Stromberg*

601 Massachusetts Avenue

Second Floor West Suite

Washington DC, 20001

Telephone: (202) 847-4400

Facsimile: (202) 847-4410

pdl@outtengolden.com

dstromberg@outtengolden.com

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 21 of 22
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

22

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 17-cv-00454-MMC

Ossai Miazad*

Michael N. Litrownik*

685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor

New York, NY 10017

Telephone: (212) 245-1000 

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

om@outtengolden.com

mlitrownik@outtengolden.com

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND 

EDUCATIONAL FUND

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

Joel Marrero (Cal. Bar No. 275601)

Andrés Gallegos (Cal. Bar No. 313090)

634 S. Spring St., 11th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90014

Telephone: (213) 629-2512

Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

tsaenz@maldef.org

jmarrero@maldef.org

agallegos@maldef.org

*admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the proposed Class

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

Relic Sun (Cal. Bar No. 306701)

Rachel Dempsey (Cal. Bar No. 310424)

One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor

San Francisco, California 94111

Telephone: (415) 638-8800 

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

jsagafi@outtengolden.com

rsun@outtengolden.com

rdempsey@outtengolden.com

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 203 Filed 05/24/18 Page 22 of 22