[PROPOSED] ORDER

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

No. 17-cv-454-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 

Ossai Miazad (pro hac vice) 

Michael N. Litrownik (pro hac vice) 

685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor 

New York, NY 10017 

Telephone: (212) 245-1000 

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 

om@outtengolden.com 

mlitrownik@outtengolden.com 

Jamie D. Wells (SBN 290827) 

MCGUIREWOODS LLP 

Two Embarcadero Center 

Suite 1300 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3821 

Telephone: 415.844.9944 

Facsimile: 415.844.9922 

K. Issac deVyver (pro hac vice) 

Karla Johnson (pro hac vice) 

Tower Two-Sixty 

260 Forbes Avenue 

Suite 1800 

Pittsburgh, PA 15222 

Telephone: 412.667.6000 

Facsimile: 412.667.6050 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

MITZIE PEREZ, and SERGIO BARAJAS, 

individually, and ANDRES ACOSTA, 

TERESA DIAZ VEDOY, VICTORIA 

RODAS, and SAMUEL TABARES 

VILLAFUERTE, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 

 Defendant. 

 

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

ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING 

SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR 

NOTICE 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 339 Filed 08/21/20 Page 1 of 15
 2 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

No. 17-cv-454-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

WHEREAS, the above-entitled action is pending before this Court (the “Action”); 

WHEREAS, the parties having made application, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(e), for an order approving the settlement of this Action, in accordance with the 

Settlement Agreement and Release dated June 16, 2020 (the “Agreement”), which, together with 

the exhibits attached thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement of the 

Action and for dismissal of the Action with prejudice upon the terms and conditions set forth 

therein; and the Court having read and considered the Agreement and the exhibits attached thereto; 

WHEREAS, all defined terms herein have the same meanings as set forth in the 

Agreement; 

WHEREAS, on July 24, 2020, a hearing was held on the motion of Plaintiffs to (1) 

conditionally certify the Settlement Class; (2) preliminarily approve the parties’ proposed class 

action settlement; (3) appoint Plaintiffs Victoria Rodas, Samuel Tabares Villafuerte, Teresa Diaz 

Vedoy, and Andres Acosta as the Class Representatives, their counsel as Class counsel, and JND 

Legal Administration as Settlement Administrator; (4) set the deadlines for submitting claims, 

written exclusions, or objections to the Agreement; (5) approve the forms of notice to the 

Settlement Class and the claim form; and (6) schedule a hearing on the final approval of the 

Agreement; 

WHEREAS, on August 14, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Submission in support of 

their motion; 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Nature of Action. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells 

Fargo”) engaged in lending discrimination on the basis of alienage or immigration status in 

violation of federal and California state law by excluding DACA recipients from access to a variety 

of consumer credit. 

Wells Fargo disputes and denies all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Wells Fargo contends that it has 

fully complied with all applicable laws at issue in this matter. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 339 Filed 08/21/20 Page 2 of 15
 3 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

No. 17-cv-454-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

2. Settlement. Plaintiffs Mitzie Perez and Sergio Barajas, individually (“Individual 

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

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

behalf of the Class, and Wells Fargo (collectively the “Parties”) have negotiated a potential 

settlement to the Action to avoid the expense, uncertainties, and burden of protracted litigation, and 

to resolve the Released Claims (as defined in the Agreement) against Wells Fargo and the Releasees. 

3. Review. At the preliminary approval stage, the Court’s task is to evaluate whether 

the settlement is within the “range of reasonableness.” 4 Newberg on Class Actions § 11.26 (4th 

ed. 2010). In determining whether class action settlements should be approved, “[c]ourts judge 

the fairness of a proposed compromise by weighing the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the 

merits against the amount and form of the relief offered in the settlement. [Citation omitted] . . . 

They do not decide the merits of the case or resolve unsettled legal questions.” Carson v. American 

Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 88 n.14 (1981). To determine if a class action settlement is “fair, 

reasonable, and adequate,” the district court must consider eight factors: “(1) the strength of the 

plaintiff's case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the 

risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; 

(5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and view 

of counsel; (7) the presence of a governmental participant; and (8) the reaction of the class 

members of the proposed settlement.” In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 

944 (9th Cir. 2015). 

 The Court has carefully reviewed the Agreement, including the plan of allocation and the 

release of claims, as well as the files, records, and proceedings to date in the Action. The Court 

has also reviewed the declarations of Ossai Miazad, Belinda Escobosa Helzer, Thomas A. Saenz, 

and K. Issac deVyver in support of preliminary approval. The terms and conditions in the 

Agreement are hereby incorporated as though fully set forth in this Order, and, unless otherwise 

indicated, capitalized terms in this Order shall have the meanings attributed to them in the 

Agreement. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 339 Filed 08/21/20 Page 3 of 15
 4 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

No. 17-cv-454-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

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

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

5. Preliminary Approval. Based on the review the Court has conducted, as set forth 

in paragraph 3, the Court does hereby preliminarily approve the Agreement and the Settlement set 

forth therein as fair, reasonable, and adequate, subject to further consideration at the Final 

Approval Hearing described below. The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the Settlement as 

set forth in the Agreement falls within the range of reasonableness and was the product of 

informed, good-faith, arms’-length negotiations between the Parties and their counsel, and 

therefore meets the requirements for preliminary approval. The Court finds and concludes that the 

assistance of an experienced mediator in the settlement process supports the finding that the 

Settlement is non-collusive. 

6. Settlement Classes. The Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only 

(and for no other purpose and with no other effect upon the Action, including no effect upon the 

Action should the Agreement not receive Final Approval or should the Effective Date not occur), 

a class defined as the collective group of all persons making up the National Class and the 

California Class, defined as follows: 

 “National Class” means those individuals who 

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

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

held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they applied for credit; (iv) 

who were denied as set forth in the class data produced by Wells Fargo; and (v) 

who were not California residents at the time they applied for credit as set forth 

in the class data produced by Wells Fargo; 

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

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

held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they applied for credit; (iv) 

who were denied as set forth in the class data produced by Wells Fargo; and (v) 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 339 Filed 08/21/20 Page 4 of 15
 5 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

No. 17-cv-454-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

who were not California residents at the time they applied for credit as set forth 

in the class data produced by Wells Fargo; 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

produced by Wells Fargo. 

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

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

held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they applied for credit; (iv) 

who were denied as set forth in the class data produced by Wells Fargo; and (v) 

who were not California residents at the time they applied for credit as set forth 

in the class data produced by Wells Fargo. 

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

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

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

families. 

// 

// 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 339 Filed 08/21/20 Page 5 of 15
 6 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

No. 17-cv-454-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” means those individuals who 

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

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

held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they applied for credit; (iv) 

who were denied as set forth in the class data produced by Wells Fargo; and 

(v) who were California residents at the time they applied for credit as set forth 

in the class data produced by Wells Fargo. 

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

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

held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they applied for credit; (iv) 

who were denied as set forth in the class data produced by Wells Fargo; and 

(v) who were California residents at the time they applied for credit as set forth 

in the class data produced by Wells Fargo. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

held valid and unexpired DACA status at the time they applied for credit; (iv) 

who were denied as set forth in the class data produced by Wells Fargo; and (v) 

who were California residents at the time they applied for credit as set forth in 

the class data produced by Wells Fargo. 

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

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

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 339 Filed 08/21/20 Page 6 of 15
 7 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

No. 17-cv-454-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

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

families. 

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

23(a) and (b)(3) is appropriate in that, in the settlement context: (a) the Members of the Classes 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Designation of Class Representatives and Class Counsel. The Court finds and 

concludes that Class Representatives Victoria Rodas, Samuel Tabares Villafuerte, Teresa Diaz 

Vedoy, and Andres Acosta have claims typical of and are adequate representatives of the members 

of the Nationwide Class they propose to represent, and Class Representatives Victoria Rodas, 

Samuel Tabares Villafuerte, and Teresa Diaz Vedoy have claims typical of and are adequate 

representatives of the members of the California Class they propose to represent. The Court hereby 

appoints Victoria Rodas, Samuel Tabares Villafuerte, Teresa Diaz Vedoy, and Andres Acosta to 

serve as Class Representatives for the Nationwide Class and Victoria Rodas, Samuel Tabares 

Villafuerte, and Teresa Diaz Vedoy to serve as Class Representatives for the California Class. The 

Court finds and concludes that Outten & Golden LLP and the Mexican American Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund (“MALDEF”) have extensive experience expertise in prosecuting 

discrimination and civil rights class actions. The Court hereby appoints Outten & Golden LLP 

and MALDEF as Class Counsel. 

8. Final Approval Hearing. A hearing (the “Final Approval Hearing”) shall be held 

before this Court on January 8, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., at the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California, San Francisco Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 339 Filed 08/21/20 Page 7 of 15
 8 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

No. 17-cv-454-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

Francisco, CA 94102, to determine, among other things: (i) whether the proposed Settlement of 

the Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and 

adequate to the Class and should be approved by the Court; (ii) whether a Judgment as provided 

in Paragraph 1.24 of the Agreement should be entered; (iii) whether Settlement Class Members 

should be bound by the Release set forth in the Agreement; (iv) any amount of fees and expenses 

that should be awarded to Class Counsel and any award to the Class Representatives and Individual 

Plaintiffs for their representation of and service to the Class; (vi) to consider any Settlement Class 

Member’s objections to the Settlement and/or any application by Class Counsel for payment or 

reimbursement of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses and any application for an award to the Class 

Representatives and Individual Plaintiffs; and (vii) to rule upon such other matters as the Court 

may deem appropriate. The Parties shall include the date of the Final Approval Hearing in the 

Notice to be mailed to the Settlement Class. 

9. Class Notice. The Court approves the form, substance and requirements of the 

Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the “Notice”) and the Forms and Instructions 

attached hereto as Exhibits 1-A and 1-B, respectively, the reminder notice, attached hereto as 

Exhibit 1-C, and the proposed communication to claimants regarding Official Documentation, 

attached hereto as Exhibit 1-D. The Court further finds that the form, content and mailing of the 

Notice, substantially in the manner and form set forth in Exhibit 1-A to this Order, meets the 

requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process. The Notice 

fairly, plainly, accurately, and reasonably informs potential Class Members of appropriate 

information about (1) the nature of this action, the definition of each Settlement Class, the identity 

of Class Counsel, and the essential terms of the Settlement, including the plan of allocation and 

the programmatic relief, and includes the address for a website maintained by the Settlement 

Administrator that has links to the notice, motions for approval and for attorneys’ fees and any 

other important documents in the case; (2) Plaintiffs’ forthcoming application for the Plaintiffs’ 

Service Awards and Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees and costs award; (3) how Class Members’ 

individual settlement payments will be calculated, with examples; (4) this Court’s procedures for 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 339 Filed 08/21/20 Page 8 of 15
 9 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

No. 17-cv-454-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

final approval of the Settlement; (5) how to submit a Claim Form, object to, or opt out of the 

Settlement; (6) how to obtain additional information regarding this action and the Settlement, 

including instructions on how to access the case docket via PACER; and (7) the date of the Final 

Approval Hearing and that the date may change without further notice to the Settlement Class, and 

that Class Members may check the settlement website or the Court’s PACER site to confirm that 

the date has not been changed. 

The Court further finds and concludes that the proposed plan for distributing the Notice 

likewise is a reasonable method calculated to reach all individuals who would be bound by the 

Settlement. Under this plan, the Settlement Administrator will distribute the Notice to all 

individuals on the Notice List by first-class mail and e-mail to their last known mailing and e-mail 

address, where the email address is readily available. There is no additional method of distribution 

that is cost-effective and would be reasonably likely to notify potential Class Members who may 

not receive notice under this proposed distribution plan. In addition, the Settlement Administrator 

will send reminder notices by email (where the email address is readily available) to those who 

have not submitted a claim form, opt out form, or objection form as the response deadline 

approaches. 

The Court further finds and concludes that the Notice List contains individuals with and 

without DACA who were denied the applicable types of credit by Defendant. The Court further 

finds that because the Notice List also contains individuals without DACA, it is necessary for Class 

Members to demonstrate that they have DACA and that the proposed Notice plan does so in a 

reasonable method by requiring the submission of Official Documentation after final approval is 

granted. The Court further finds that the Settlement contains reasonable protections to maintain 

the confidentiality of such Official Documentation, including ensuring that Class Members submit 

it only to the Settlement Administrator, which will treat it with the highest level of confidentiality. 

The Court hereby concludes that the proposed Notice and Notice plan are the best 

practicable under the circumstances and are reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to 

apprise potential Class Members of the pendency of the Action, to apprise persons who would 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 339 Filed 08/21/20 Page 9 of 15
 10 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

No. 17-cv-454-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

otherwise fall within the definition of the Class of their right to exclude themselves from the 

proposed Class, and to apprise Class Members of their right to object to the proposed Settlement 

and their right to appear at the Final Approval Hearing. The Court further finds that the Notice 

constitutes due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto. 

10. Settlement Administrator. The Court appoints JND Legal Administration 

(“Settlement Administrator”) to supervise and administer the notice procedure as more fully set 

forth below: 

(a) No later than September 25, 2020 (the “Notice Mailing Date”), the 

Settlement Administrator shall cause a copy of the Notice, substantially in the form attached as 

Exhibit 1-A hereto, together with the Forms and Instructions, substantially in the form attached as 

Exhibit 1-B hereto (though the Settlement Administrator shall have discretion to format the Notice 

in a reasonable manner to minimize mailing or administration costs), to be mailed by first class 

U.S. mail and e-mailed (to the extent email is readily available) to the last known mailing address 

and e-mail address of each individual on the Notice List; 

(b) No later than the Notice Mailing Date, the Settlement Administrator shall 

establish a website at www.WFDACALawsuit.com, and shall post on the website the Agreement, 

the Notice, the Forms and Instructions, and the operative Complaint in this Action; 

(c) Following the mailing of the Notice, the Settlement Administrator shall 

provide counsel with written confirmation of the mailing and publication via website; 

(d) No later than October 26, 2020, the Settlement Administrator shall cause a 

copy of the reminder notice, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit 1-C hereto, to be emailed 

(where the email address is readily available) to each individual on the Notice List; and 

(e) The Settlement Administrator shall work with Wells Fargo to provide notice 

to government officials in conformity with 28 U.S.C. § 1715. 

(f) The Settlement Administrator shall otherwise carry out its duties as set forth 

in Section 6 of the Agreement. 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 339 Filed 08/21/20 Page 10 of 15
 11 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

No. 17-cv-454-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

11. Submission of Claim Forms. Class Members who wish to receive payment under 

the Settlement shall complete, sign, and return their Claim Form in accordance with the 

instructions contained therein. Unless the Court orders otherwise, all Claim Forms must be 

postmarked no later than November 24, 2020. Any Class Member who does not timely and validly 

submit a Verified Claim Form within the time provided shall be barred from receiving payment 

under the Settlement, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, but shall nevertheless be bound by 

any Final Judgment entered by the Court. 

12. Exclusion from the Class. Any Class Member may, upon request, be excluded 

from the Class. Any such Class Member must submit a written Request to Opt Out, postmarked 

no later than November 24, 2020. The written Request to Opt Out must be sent to the Settlement 

Administrator. To be valid, the Request to Opt Out must be made on the Request to Opt Out form 

and (a) identify the case name, (b) identify the Class Member’s name and address, (c) be personally 

signed by the person requesting exclusion, (d) contain a statement that indicates a desire to be 

excluded from the Settlement Class, (e) affirm valid and unexpired DACA status at the time of the 

denial, and (f) include Official Documentation as set forth in Section 11 of the Settlement 

Agreement. All Class Members who submit valid, verified, and timely Requests to Opt Out in the 

manner set forth in this Paragraph shall have no rights under the Agreement and shall not be bound 

by the Agreement or any Final Judgment. Mass or class opt outs shall not be allowed. A Class 

Member who desires to opt out must take timely affirmative written action pursuant to this Order 

and the Agreement, even if the person desiring to opt out of the Class (a) files or has filed a separate 

action against any of the Released Parties, or (b) is, or becomes, a putative class member in any 

other class action filed against any of the Released Parties. 

13. Copies of Requests to Opt Out. The Settlement Administrator shall provide Class 

Counsel and Defense Counsel with a list of all timely Requests to Opt Out within seven (7) 

business days after the Opt-Out Deadline. 

14. Entry of Appearance. Any member of the Class who does not exclude himself or 

herself from the Settlement Class may enter an appearance in the Action, at his or her own expense, 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 339 Filed 08/21/20 Page 11 of 15
 12 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

No. 17-cv-454-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

individually or through counsel of his or her own choice. If he or she does not enter an appearance, 

he or she will be represented by Class Counsel. 

15. Binding Effect on Class. All Members who do not exclude themselves from the 

Settlement Class by properly and timely submitting an exclusion form shall be bound by all 

determinations and judgments in the Action concerning the Settlement, whether favorable or 

unfavorable to the Class. 

16. Objections. Any Class Member who does not timely and validly exclude himself 

or herself from the Settlement Class may appear and show cause, if he or she has any reason why 

the proposed Settlement of the Action should not be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, 

why a Final Judgment should not be entered thereon, why attorneys’ fees and expenses should not 

be awarded to Class Counsel, or why an award should not be made to the Class Representatives; 

provided, however, that no Class Member shall be heard or entitled to contest the approval of the 

terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement, or, if approved, the Final Judgment to be entered 

thereon approving the same, or any attorneys’ fees and expenses to be awarded to Class Counsel 

or award made to the Class Representatives, unless a written objection is filed with the Clerk of 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Courthouse, 

450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, on or before November 24, 2020. To be 

valid, the objection must be made on the Objection form and set forth, in clear and concise terms: 

(a) the case name and number (Mitzie Perez, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:17-cv-00454-

MMC); (b) the name, address, telephone number of the Settlement Class Member objecting and, 

if represented by counsel, of his/her counsel; (c) the reasons for the objection; (d) a statement of 

whether he/she intends to appear at the Final Approval Hearing, either with or without counsel; 

and (e) affirm that the individual had valid and unexpired DACA status and was denied one of the 

credit products. The Objection must also include the Official Documentation as set forth in Section 

12 of the Agreement, to be provided only to the Settlement Administrator. Within seven (7) 

business days of the Objection Deadline, the Settlement Administrator shall provide a report to the 

Court setting forth a list of Objections that meet the above guidelines. The Court shall have the 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 339 Filed 08/21/20 Page 12 of 15
 13 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

No. 17-cv-454-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

ultimate determination of whether an Objection has been appropriately made, and the Court may 

seek in camera review of Official Documentation if requested. 

17. Any Class Member who does not make his or her objection in the manner provided 

shall be deemed to have waived such objection, shall not be permitted to object to any terms or 

approval of the Settlement at the Final Approval Hearing, and shall forever be foreclosed from 

making any objection to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the proposed Settlement as 

incorporated in the Agreement, and to the award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to Class Counsel 

and the payment of an award to the Class Representatives for their representation of the Class, 

unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 

18. Appearance of Objectors at Final Approval Hearing. Any Class Member who 

files and serves a written objection in accordance with Paragraph 16 of this Order may appear, in 

person or by counsel, at the Final Approval Hearing held by the Court, to show cause why the 

proposed Settlement should not be approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable, but only if the 

objector files with the Clerk of the Court a notice of intention to appear at the Final Approval 

Hearing by November 24, 2020 (“Notice of Intention to Appear”). The Notice of Intention to 

Appear must include the identity of any witnesses that may be called to testify and copies of any 

papers, exhibits, or other evidence that the objector will present to the Court in connection with 

the Final Approval Hearing. Any Settlement Class Member who does not file a Notice of Intention 

to Appear in accordance with the deadlines and other specifications set forth in the Agreement and 

Class Notice shall not be entitled to appear at the Final Approval Hearing and raise any objections. 

19. Service of Motion for Final Approval. The motion in support of final approval 

of the Settlement shall be filed and served no later than December 23, 2020. 

20. Fees, Expenses, and Awards. Class Counsel’s application for Attorneys’ Fees 

and Expenses shall be filed, and placed on the settlement website, no later than September 25, 

2020. Neither Wells Fargo nor the Releasees shall have any responsibility for any application for 

Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses submitted by Class Counsel, and such matters will be considered 

separately from the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement. At or after the Final 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 339 Filed 08/21/20 Page 13 of 15
 14 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

No. 17-cv-454-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

Approval Hearing, the Court shall determine whether any application for Attorneys’ Fees and 

Expenses, and any award to the Class Representatives and Individual Plaintiffs for their service to 

the Class, should be approved. 

21. Releases. If the Settlement is finally approved, the Releasors shall release the 

Releasees from all Released Claims. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Parties in a proceeding to enforce the Agreement. 

23. Continuance of Final Approval Hearing. The Court reserves the right to continue 

the date of the Final Approval Hearing without further notice to the Members of the Class, and 

retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising out of or connected with the proposed 

Settlement. The Court may approve the Settlement, with such modifications as may be agreed to 

by the Parties, if appropriate, without further notice to the Class. 

24. Stay of Proceedings. All proceedings in this Action are stayed until further Order 

of this Court, except as may be necessary to implement the Settlement or comply with the terms 

of the Agreement. 

25. Preliminary Injunction. Pending final determination of whether the Settlement 

should be approved, and upon expiration of the Opt-Out Deadline, all Class Members who do not 

timely and validly exclude themselves from the Settlement Class, and each of them, and anyone 

who purports to act on their behalf, are preliminarily enjoined from directly or indirectly 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 339 Filed 08/21/20 Page 14 of 15
 15 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE

No. 17-cv-454-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

maintaining, commencing, prosecuting, or pursuing directly, representatively, or in any other 

capacity, any Released Claim subsumed and covered by the Release in the Agreement, including 

in any court or arbitration forum. 

26. Termination of Settlement. If: (a) the Agreement is terminated as provided in 

Section 13 of the Agreement; or (b) any specified material term or condition of the Settlement as 

set forth in the Agreement is not satisfied as provided in Section 13 of the Agreement, then this 

Order may not be introduced as evidence or referred to in any actions or proceedings by any person 

or entity and shall be treated as vacated, nunc pro tunc (except Paragraph 22 of this Order shall 

remain in effect), and each party shall be restored to his, her, or its respective position in this Action 

as it existed prior to the execution of the Agreement. 

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

determination as to the merits of this case. 

28. Authority. The Court hereby authorizes the Parties to take such further steps as 

necessary and appropriate to establish the means necessary to implement the terms of the 

Agreement. 

29. Jurisdiction. This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the Action to consider 

all further matters arising out of or connected with the Agreement and the Settlement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 21, 2020 _____________________________________ 

THE HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 339 Filed 08/21/20 Page 15 of 15