Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/13261368/Original-complaint-against-wells-fargo-bank-Wells-fargo-home-Mortgage
Timestamp: 2016-10-27 08:35:02
Document Index: 797408754

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1981', '§ 3601', '§ 1691', '§ 1981', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 3601', '§3605', '§ 1691', '§ 1691', '§ 1691', '§3605', '§ 1981', '§ 1981']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music1 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 28Angela Ciccolo (To be admitted pro hac vice) General Counsel, NAACP 4805 Mt. Hope Dr. Baltimore, MD 21215 Tel: (410) 580-5792 Fax: (410) 358-9350 Brian S. Kabateck (SBN 152054) Richard L. Kellner (SBN 171416) KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Tel: (213) 217-5000 Fax: (213) 217-5010 rlk@kbklawyers.com Austin Tighe (Admitted pro hac vice) FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP 6300 Bridgepoint Parkway Bridgepoint 1, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78730 Tel: (512) 372-8100 Fax: (512) 372-8140 austin@feazell-tighe.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP), on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, as well as on Behalf of the General Public and Acting in the Public Interest, Plaintiff, vs. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CASE NO. SACV 07-0794 ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: 1. VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT; 2. VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT; 3. VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982
1 Original Class Action Complaint
Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and a Class consisting of all its members and based upon information and belief, states as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (the
“NAACP”) brings this action in its representative capacity and as a class action seeking injunctive and other relief against numerous mortgage lenders who are engaged in institutionalized, systematic racism in connection with its members’ purchase of residential mortgage loans. The pervasiveness of this discrimination has been
documented in numerous empirical studies that all confirm that African-Americans are substantially more likely to receive higher-rate residential mortgage loans than Caucasian borrowers with the same qualifications. 2. Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.
have engaged in disparate treatment of African Americans, and have adopted facially neutral policies and practices that have a disparate discriminatory impact on African Americans in residential mortgage lending. 3. With respect to the Defendant lenders, the Class is comprised of African
Americans: (a) who received subprime mortgage loans even though they qualified for more favorable conventional mortgage loans in the prime market or (b) whose loans were approved based upon the low initial interest rate but who would not qualify based upon the interest rate that would be charged when the rate was scheduled to adjust upward within the first four years of the loan. 4. It is beyond dispute that the African American community has long been
the victim of discriminatory banking practices. Generations of African Americans have been deprived the opportunity to participate in the American dream by banks that refused to give them mortgage loans simply because of the color of their skin, or placed them in unfavorable loans that decimate them financially.
2 Original Class Action Complaint
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. target the
2 African American community by capitalizing on their relative lack of experience in 3 dealing with banking institutions and mortgage loans.
4 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. are aware of the African 5 American community’s susceptibility to predatory lending practices, but nonetheless 6 engage in policies and procedures that they know will result in African Americans being 7 steered toward less favorable loans. 8
Indeed, in 2006, the Center for Responsible Lending, a non-profit research
9 organization, found that even when income and credit risk were accounted for, African 10 Americans were still 31% to 34% more likely to receive higher rate subprime loans, and 11 that the disparities between them and Caucasians with the same risk factors were “large 12 and statistically significant.” 13
In another study, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition
14 determined that lending institutions in six major metropolitan areas engaged in 15 “pervasive discriminatory and predatory practices”, including making high cost 16 subprime loans to higher-qualified African-Americans 54% of the time, compared to 17 23% of the time for Caucasians, even when Caucasian applicants were similarly, and 18 often less, qualified. 19
Similarly, the Federal Reserve Board concluded that African Americans
20 were more likely to pay higher prices for mortgages than their Caucasian counterparts. 21 The United States Inspector General cited that report as showing “significant” 22 differences, making it “clear” that African Americans were “much more likely to get 23 higher-priced loans” than Caucasians. For example, a 2006 study by ACORN showed 24 that African Americans were 3.6 times more likely than whites to be put into a subprime 25 purchase loan and 6.1 times more likely to be refinanced into such a loan. 26
These statistical disparities are not mere happenstance, but instead result
27 from the systematic and predatory targeting of African Americans, as well as facially
3 Original Class Action Complaint
1 neutral lending policies and practices that have a disparate adverse impact on African 2 Americans. 3
As described below, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Home
4 Mortgage, Inc. have engaged in disparate treatment by issuing the Class mortgage loans 5 under less favorable terms than equally situated Caucasians. In addition, Defendants 6 have instituted specific, identifiable policies and practices that have a disparate adverse 7 impact on African Americans. 8
The NAACP brings this class action seeking declaratory, monetary and
9 injunctive relief based upon the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and 10 the Civil Rights Act. 11 12
THE PARTIES 12. Plaintiff National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Its history and
13 (“NAACP”) is the nation’s oldest civil rights organization.
14 accomplishments are well known. Its mission includes ensuring economic equality and 15 eliminating racial hatred and discrimination, including racial discrimination in housing. 16 The NAACP is a non-profit and non-partisan organization, headquartered in Baltimore, 17 Maryland. 18
The NAACP, individually and on behalf of its members, has been injured
19 by the Defendants complained of herein. The NAACP has representational standing to 20 pursue this claim as a class action on behalf of its members. Its request for injunctive 21 and declaratory relief does not require participation of the members, even though the 22 members have standing to seek this same relief in their own right. In fact, the members, 23 or any one of them, are in real and imminent danger of suffering immediate or threatened 24 injury as a result of these predatory lending policies, which said members could directly 25 pursue. Also, the interests the NAACP seeks to protect are germane to its stated purpose 26 of ensuring economic equality and eliminating racial hatred and discrimination, 27 including racial discrimination in housing.
Finally, although seeking injunctive and
4 Original Class Action Complaint
1 declaratory relief for a class of its members, the NAACP also has standing to sue in its 2 own right because Defendants’ discriminatory mortgage lending policies and practices 3 tend to frustrate the association’s mission, reduce contributions and divert its resources, 4 including through investigation, advocacy and counseling, and litigation costs. 5
Members of the NAACP have been injured in fact by Defendant as
6 complained herein. 7
Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is legally chartered in Sioux Falls,
8 South Dakota, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Wells 9 Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., with its principal 10 place of business in Des Moines, Iowa. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Home 11 Mortgage, Inc., which do business throughout California and the United States, are 12 herein referred to as “WELLS FARGO” or “Defendants”. 13 14
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16. This is an action for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. (Fair Housing
15 Act), 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. (Equal Credit Opportunity Act) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et 16 seq. (Civil Rights Act). This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 17 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question). 18
Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
19 § 1391(b) and (c) because Defendants are corporations subject to personal jurisdiction in 20 this district. 21 22
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 18. The NAACP brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of
23 Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of the NAACP, its members and the members 24 of the Class described below. 25
Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their officers, directors and
26 employees, members of their immediate families and each of their legal representatives, 27 heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or have had a
5 Original Class Action Complaint
1 controlling interest; members of the Plaintiff organization who are not African2 American; and any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the 3 members of their immediate families and judicial staff. 4
This class action is comprised of the following: African Americans who
5 were sold subprime mortgage loans from WELLS FARGO even though they qualified 6 for more favorable conventional mortgage loans from WELLS FARGO, and African 7 Americans who would not qualify under WELLS FARGO’s loan guidelines if WELLS 8 FARGO had evaluated the loan under the anticipated adjusted rates during the first four 9 years of the loan, rather than the low initial or “teaser” interest rate. 10
This action is properly maintainable as a class action as to each Class
11 member because: 12
Numerosity: The members of the Class for whose benefit this action is
13 brought are dispersed throughout the state and nationwide, and are so numerous that 14 joinder of each members of the Class is impracticable. 15
Typicality: The NAACP has representative standing to bring the class
16 action for the relief requested, its interests do not conflict with the interests of any 17 members of the Class, and was subject to the same discriminatory treatment and policies 18 and procedures that resulted in a disparate and discriminatory impact on the members of 19 the Class. 20
Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate: The questions of law
21 and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over any questions affecting 22 individual members of the Class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the 23 Class are: 24 25 26 27
a. The nature and scope of Defendants’ policies and procedures relating to the marketing of subprime residential mortgage products to consumers;
6 Original Class Action Complaint
b. Whether Defendants have subjected their African American consumers and members of the NAACP to disparate adverse treatment by imposing terms and conditions for residential mortgage loans that resulted in their paying more for their loans than similarly situated Caucasian customers; c. Whether Defendants marketed and/or determined the type of loan, interest rate, duration or other terms of a loan based in whole or in part on the race of the applicants; d. Whether Defendants unlawfully steered applicants to less favorable credit products than they qualified for on the basis of race; e. Whether Defendants’ policies and practices of providing financial incentives to mortgage brokers to steer consumers to subprime residential mortgage products in lieu of prime residential mortgage products, while at the same time having a policy and practice of not providing a meaningful review of residential mortgage loan applications to determine if the applicant qualifies for prime residential mortgage products, constitutes facially neutral policies that create a disparate discriminatory impact against African Americans; f. Whether Defendants discriminated against the Class by providing them with subprime residential mortgage loans when they qualify for prime residential mortgage loans offered by the Defendants or one of their related entities; g. Whether Defendants have a statutory obligation to evaluate the ability of each applicant to repay the loan based on the interest rate
7 Original Class Action Complaint
during the life of the loan and not only on the initial or “teaser” rate; h. Whether Defendants’ policies and practices of evaluating each applicant’s ability to repay a loan based only on the initial rate and not the rate that will be adjusted upward constitutes facially neutral policies that create a disparate discriminatory impact against African Americans; i. Whether Defendants have any legitimate business reason for the aforementioned policies and practices that can be achieved by alternative means that have a less discriminatory impact against African Americans; j. Whether Defendants’ intent in their discriminatory policies and procedures was racially motivated; and k. Whether Defendants’ policies and practices have proximately caused damages and injury to Plaintiff and the Classes entitling them to injunctive and declaratory relief, and the measure of that relief. 25. Adequacy of Representation: The NAACP will fairly and adequately
19 protect the interests of the Class and have retained counsel competent and experienced in 20 class action litigation, including class actions within the Central District of California. 21 The NAACP has no interests antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the Class that the 22 NAACP seeks to represent. 23
Injunctive/Declaratory Class: Defendants have acted or refused to act on
24 grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making final injunctive relief proper 25 with respect to the Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). 26
WELLS FARGO has engaged, and continues to engage, in disparate
27 treatment by issuing residential mortgage loans to African Americans under less
8 Original Class Action Complaint
1 favorable terms than equally situated Caucasians.
In addition, WELLS FARGO has
2 instituted specific, identifiable policies and practices that have a disparate adverse impact 3 on African Americans. 4 supportive of both claims. 5
The statistical evidence identified herein is sufficiently
The majority of African-Americans who took out purchase mortgages in
6 2005 were put into higher-cost subprime loans, compared with about 17% of 7 Caucasians, according to Federal Reserve data. As just two examples, the South Side of 8 Chicago, with a large concentration of minority borrowers, has a high concentration of 9 subprime loans and the state's highest foreclosure rate. And in Boston, where defaults 10 are rising primarily in minority neighborhoods, 73% of high-income African-Americans 11 (those making $92,000 to $152,000) received subprime loans in 2005, compared with 12 17% of Caucasians. 13
This is consistent with the Association of Community Organizations for
14 Reform Now (ACORN) finding in 2001 that among upper-income African-Americans 15 nationally, 18.05 percent of conventional refinance loans received were from subprime 16 lenders, whereas for upper-income Caucasian homeowners it was only 4.81 percent. In 17 fact, upper-income African-American homeowners are more likely to receive a subprime 18 loan while refinancing even when compared to lower-income Caucasian homeowners. 19
While some borrowers in the subprime market are genuine credit risks,
20 African-American borrowers have been targeted and illegally steered into subprime 21 residential mortgage loans.
WELLS FARGO is reluctant or refuses to offer these
22 borrowers the prime loans that are offered to Caucasian borrowers with the same 23 qualifications.
Instead, WELLS FARGO engages in predatory subprime lending,
24 knowingly making loans with high loan-to-value ratios, in this case to borrowers who 25 qualify for lower-cost or prime loans, in what amounts to a kind of “reverse redlining”. 26 Studies by Freddie Mac and Standard & Poor’s have found that 20% to 30% of 27 borrowers who receive subprime mortgages could have qualified for traditional
9 Original Class Action Complaint
1 mortgages at the lower rates offered by banks to prime borrowers.
2 dilutes the equity from the property, places the borrower in jeopardy of default, and puts 3 the borrower in the position of spending years paying off additional loan balances 4 without developing any equity. 5
In September 2005, the Federal Reserve Board concluded that African-
6 Americans were more likely to pay higher prices for these mortgages. The United States 7 Inspector General then cited that report as showing “significant” differences that made it 8 “clear” that African-Americans were “much more likely to get higher-priced loans” than 9 Caucasians, and the FDIC has stated that it does not believe that these significant 10 disparities can be explained away by risk-based pricing, as the lending industry has 11 repeatedly tried to do. 12
Further, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found
13 that in neighborhoods where at least 80 percent of the population is African-American, 14 borrowers were 2.2 times more likely than borrowers in the nation as a whole to 15 refinance with a subprime lender.
In fact, upper-income borrowers living in
16 predominately African-American neighborhoods are twice as likely as lower-income 17 Caucasian borrowers to have subprime loans. 18
WELLS FARGO has subjected its African American consumers and
19 members of the NAACP to disparate adverse treatment by imposing terms and 20 conditions for residential mortgage loans that resulted in their paying more for their 21 loans than similarly situated Caucasian customers. 22
WELLS FARGO unlawfully steered applicants to less favorable credit
23 products than they qualified for on the basis of race. 24
WELLS FARGO had engaged in a policy and practice of actively
25 marketing subprime residential mortgage loan products directly to consumers, without 26 providing them with sufficient information on how to purchase prime residential 27 mortgage products from WELLS FARGO or one of its related entities.
10 Original Class Action Complaint
WELLS FARGO has engaged in policies and practices that provide greater
2 financial compensation for mortgage brokers to steer consumers to subprime residential 3 mortgage products in lieu of prime residential mortgage products from the defendants or 4 one of its related entities. 5 originated through brokers. 6
In fact, for 2006, 71 percent of all subprime loans were
The adverse impact of these policies and practices is felt disproportionately
7 by African American consumers and members of the NAACP, compared to similarly 8 situated Caucasians, as reflected in the substantially higher relative rate at which African 9 Americans receive subprime residential mortgage loans despite the fact that they qualify 10 for prime or “A” paper residential mortgage loans. 11
Based upon the foregoing, WELLS FARGO was aware or should have
12 been aware that applications for subprime residential mortgage loans include those made 13 by individuals who would qualify for prime or “A” paper residential mortgage loans. 14
Nonetheless, WELLS FARGO had the policy and practice of not providing
15 meaningful review of loan applications to determine whether the applicant qualifies for a 16 prime residential mortgage product offered by the defendant or one of its affiliated 17 entities. While WELLS FARGO might review loan applications to determine whether 18 they qualify for the subprime residential mortgage product, WELLS FARGO had 19 policies and practices of not reviewing the application to determine if the applicant 20 would qualify for a prime residential mortgage product offered by Ameriquest or one of 21 its affiliated entities. The adverse effect of this policy was felt disproportionately by 22 African American consumers and members of the NAACP, compared to similarly 23 situated Caucasians, as reflected in their subprime rates. 24
WELLS FARGO subjects its individual African American borrowers to
25 terms and conditions for home mortgage loans that resulted in those borrowers paying 26 more for their loans than similarly situated Caucasian borrowers. 27
11 Original Class Action Complaint
The foregoing policies and practices are facially neutral in that WELLS
2 FARGO applies the same policies and practices to all residential mortgage loans. 3
The foregoing policies and practices have a disproportionately adverse
4 effect on African Americans compared with similarly situated Caucasian applicants 5 because African Americans are subject to a significantly higher likelihood of receiving a 6 subprime residential mortgage loan than Caucasian borrowers when they nonetheless 7 qualify for a prime residential mortgage loan. Statistical analysis confirms that African 8 Americans are more likely to be placed in subprime loans when they qualify for prime 9 loans, than similarly situated Caucasians. 10
This statistical analysis goes beyond the data recently required under the
11 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and demonstrates a clear pattern of discrimination 12 unexplainable on grounds other than race. 13
The 2004 HMDA reporting requirements first directed lenders to identify
14 higher-rate loans. That year, staff to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 15 System analyzed the distribution of these higher-rate loans.
They reported pricing
16 disparities between different racial and ethnic groups even after controlling for a 17 borrower’s income, gender, property location, and the loan amount. For example, after 18 accounting for these differences, African-Americans who took a loan to purchase a home 19 were 3.1 times more likely than Caucasian borrowers to receive a higher-rate home loan. 20 While this Federal Reserve analysis confirmed that African-American borrowers were 21 more likely to receive higher-rate loans than white borrowers, the researchers were 22 unable to broadly explore how these disparities were affected by risk factors such as 23 borrowers’ credit score, down payment, or ability to document income. Then last year, 24 the Center for Responsible Lending produced the first full research report that addresses 25 this limitation. 26
Specifically, the Center developed a database of 177,000 subprime loans
27 by matching loans in HMDA to a private database of subprime mortgages. This step
12 Original Class Action Complaint
1 enabled them to bring together detailed information on mortgage pricing, loan terms, and 2 borrower risk characteristics into a single dataset. As a result, that study was able to 3 account for those factors and isolate the effects of race and ethnicity in influencing 4 whether a borrower receives a higher-rate loan in the subprime market. 5
The findings were striking, yet consistent with those of the Federal Reserve The Center found that race and ethnicity – two
6 and other consumer organizations.
7 factors that should play no role in pricing – were significant predictors of whether a 8 subprime loan falls into the higher-rate portion of the market.
9 remained significant predictors even after they accounted for the major factors that 10 lenders list on rate sheets to determine loan pricing. 11
Even after controlling for legitimate loan risk factors, including borrowers’
12 credit score, loan-to-value ratio, and ability to document income, race mattered, and it 13 mattered in a discriminatory way.
African American borrowers continued to face a
14 much greater likelihood of receiving the most expensive subprime loans – even with the 15 same loan type and the same qualifications as their white counterparts. Across a variety 16 of different loan types, African Americans were commonly 31% to 34% more likely to 17 receive a higher-rate loan than Caucasian borrowers. 18
This data evidences and is indicative of the treatment and impact described
19 herein. 20
Further, WELLS FARGO had policies and practices of marketing
21 residential mortgage loans that have initial rates during the first few years of the loan 22 that are substantially lower than the rates that will be charged during the remaining 23 course of the loans.
These rates are often referred to as “teaser” rates or the initial
24 interest rates for “Option ARM” loans. WELLS FARGO knew that the initial or teaser 25 interest rate will increase substantially during the first four years of such residential 26 mortgage loans. 27
13 Original Class Action Complaint
Notwithstanding the fact that WELLS FARGO had a non-delegable,
2 statutorily obligated duty to evaluate each applicant’s ability to repay the entire loan (and 3 not just the initial or teaser rates), WELLS FARGO had policies and practices of 4 evaluating each applicant’s ability to pay based upon only the lower initial rate. 5
These policies and practices are facially neutral insofar as WELLS
6 FARGO used the same policies and practices for all residential mortgage loan 7 applications. 8
9 effect on African Americans compared with similarly situated Caucasian applicants. 10 Statistically, African Americans are more likely to obtain residential mortgage loans that 11 would not satisfy WELLS FARGO’s loan guidelines if the loan had been evaluated 12 under the anticipated adjusted rates during the first four years of the loan, rather than the 13 low initial interest rate. This is because African Americans have a much lower mean 14 household income than Caucasians.
Census data indicates that in 2006 African
15 Americans had a mean household income of $31,969 compared to $52,423 for 16 Caucasians. A policy that evaluates the ability to repay a loan based only on an initial 17 low rate will necessarily result in a disproportionate impact on African Americans since, 18 due to their lower incomes, a disproportionate number will be being stuck in loans they 19 will not be able to repay when the interest rate increases. 20
The consequences of these policies and procedures have resulted in
21 African Americans being disproportionately given loans that they will not have an 22 ability to repay when the higher rates kick in.
In the event African American
23 homeowners elect to refinance their mortgages (in the unlikely event that they are able to 24 qualify for such refinancing), they must often pay huge pre-payment penalties pursuant 25 to the terms and conditions of the original residential mortgage loan. 26 27
14 Original Class Action Complaint
There is no legitimate business reason justifying each of the
2 aforementioned policies and practices that could not be achieved by a policy that does 3 not have a discriminatory impact or a greatly reduced discriminatory impact. 4
Even though, upon information and belief, WELLS FARGO is presently
5 no longer issuing mortgage loans, the injunctive relief requested in this Original 6 Complaint is required because there is a great likelihood that upon the stabilization of 7 the mortgage market, WELLS FARGO will again market and sell mortgage loans and 8 the injunctive relief is required to ensure that the discriminatory conduct is not repeated. 9 10 11
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Fair Housing Act – 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) 56. The NAACP incorporates each and every preceding paragraph stated
12 above, inclusive, as though the same were fully set forth herein. 13
The Fair Housing Act prohibits mortgage lenders from imposing different
14 terms or conditions on a loan, such as different interest rates, points or fees, on the basis 15 of race. The rights of the Class are protected by the Act. 16
WELLS FARGO’s policies and practices have resulted in discrimination
17 with respect to the Class, resulting in economic injury, as particularly stated herein. 18
By selling subprime residential mortgages to African Americans who
19 qualify for prime residential mortgages at grossly unfavorable terms compared to 20 Caucasians who continue to receive better terms than their African American 21 counterparts, WELLS FARGO has discriminated against The Class with respect to their 22 ability to participate in real estate transactions under terms and conditions that violate 42 23 U.S.C. §3605. 24
WELLS FARGO engaged in the following facially neutral policies and
25 practices that have an adverse disparate impact on African Americans: 26 27
a. actively marketing subprime residential loan products directly to consumers, without
15 Original Class Action Complaint
information on how to purchase prime residential mortgage products from WELLS FARGO or one of its related entities; b. providing financial incentives for mortgage brokers to steer consumers to subprime residential mortgage products in lieu of prime residential mortgage products from WELLS FARGO or one of its related entities; c. not providing meaningful review of loan applications to determine whether the applicant qualifies for a prime residential mortgage product offered by WELLS FARGO or one of its affiliated entities. 61. The foregoing facially neutral policies and practices have a
11 disproportionately adverse effect on African Americans compared with similarly situated 12 Caucasian applicants because African Americans are subject to a significantly higher 13 likelihood of receiving a subprime residential mortgage loan than Caucasian borrowers 14 when they nonetheless qualify for a prime residential mortgage loan. Statistical analysis 15 confirms that African Americans are more likely to be placed in subprime loans when 16 they qualify for prime loans, than comparable situated Caucasians, thus constituting a 17 violation of the Fair Housing Act. 18
WELLS FARGO engaged in the following additional facially neutral
19 policies and practices that have an adverse disparate impact on African Americans: 20 21 22 23 24 25
a. marketing residential mortgage loans that have “teaser” rates or the initial interest rates for “Option ARM” loans; and b. evaluating each applicant’s ability to pay based upon only the lower initial rate, and not the subsequent adjusted higher rate that will be due under the loan. 63. The foregoing policies and practices have a disproportionately adverse
26 effect on African Americans compared with similarly situated Caucasian applicants. 27 Statistically, African Americans are more likely than Caucasians to obtain residential
16 Original Class Action Complaint
1 mortgage loans that would not satisfy WELLS FARGO’s loan guidelines if the loan had 2 been evaluated under the anticipated adjusted rates during the first four years of the loan, 3 rather than the low initial interest rate. 4
5 aforementioned policies and practices that could not be achieved by a policy that does 6 not have a discriminatory impact or a greatly reduced discriminatory impact. 7
As a proximate result of WELLS FARGO’s violation of this statute, the
8 NAACP and the Class A have been actually damaged. 9 10 11 12 13
This cause of action arises from continuing violations of this Act. The NAACP and the Class are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Equal Credit Opportunity Act – 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.)
The NAACP incorporates each and every preceding paragraph stated
14 above, inclusive, as though the same were fully set forth herein. 15
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act was first enacted in 1974 as a consumer
16 protection statute prohibiting discrimination in the issuing of credit. The Act has been 17 broadly construed by the courts in order to make effective its provisions to protect 18 consumers. 19
WELLS FARGO is a creditor within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1691(e). The Act
20 The mortgage loans offered to NAACP members are credit transactions.
21 provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any 22 applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction . . . on the basis of race.” 15 23 U.S.C. § 1691(a)(1).
Class members are systematically and continuously extended
24 mortgage credit by Defendants on a discriminatory basis. The rights of the Class are 25 protected by the Act. WELLS FARGO discriminated against the Class and they were 26 economically injured, as particularly stated herein. 27
17 Original Class Action Complaint
WELLS FARGO engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination on the
2 basis of race in the terms and interest rates charged to African American consumers and 3 members of the NAACP.
By selling subprime residential mortgages to African
4 Americans who qualify for prime residential mortgages at a far greater rate than 5 Caucasians, WELLS FARGO discriminated against the Class with respect to their ability 6 to participate in real estate transactions under terms and conditions that violate 42 U.S.C. 7 §3605. 8
9 practices that have a disproportionately adverse impact on African Americans when 10 compared with Caucasians: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
a. actively marketing subprime residential loan products directly to consumers, without providing applicants with sufficient
information on how to purchase prime residential mortgage products from WELLS FARGO or one of its related entities; b. providing financial incentives for mortgage brokers to steer consumers to subprime residential mortgage products in lieu of prime residential mortgage products from WELLS FARGO or one of its related entities; and c. not providing meaningful review of loan applications to determine whether the applicant qualifies for a prime residential mortgage product offered by WELLS FARGO or one of its affiliated entities. 73. WELLS FARGO engaged in the following additional facially neutral
23 policies and practices that have a disproportionately adverse impact on African 24 Americans when compared with: 25 26 27
a. marketing residential mortgage loans that have “teaser” rates or the initial interest rates for “Option ARM” loans; and
18 Original Class Action Complaint
b. evaluating each applicant’s ability to pay based upon only the lower initial rate, and not the subsequent adjusted higher rate that will be due under the loan. 74. There is no legitimate business reason justifying each of the
8 Class has been actually damaged. 9 10 11 12 13
This cause of action arises from continuing violations of this Act. The NAACP and the Class are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Civil Rights Act: Racial Discrimination 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982 et seq.)
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and 1870, and later expanded upon in 1991,
16 prohibits racial discrimination in the formation and issuance of contracts, and intentional 17 interference in the purchase and holding of real property. 18
WELLS FARGO intentionally discriminated against the Class by charging
19 them higher interest rates than those charged to similarly-situated Caucasian mortgagees. 20
By charging higher rates to the Class, WELLS FARGO unlawfully
21 discriminated against the Class in (i) formation of contracts, (ii) making, performance, 22 modification, and termination of contracts, and/or (iii) the enjoyment of all benefits, 23 privileges, terms and conditions of the contractual relationship, and in their right to 24 purchase and hold real property. 25
WELLS FARGO’s actions violate 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982. As a
26 proximate result of WELLS FARGO’s systematic violation of this statute, the NAACP 27 and the Class are entitled to the requested relief provided under the Act.
19 Original Class Action Complaint
JURY DEMAND The NAACP, individually and in a representative capacity on behalf of the Class, hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims and issues which it has a right for a jury to render judgment.
PRAYER WHEREFORE, the NAACP, individually and in a representative capacity on behalf of the putative Class comprised of African Americans and/or members of the NAACP, prays for entry of judgment as follows: A. Certifying the putative Class and appointing the NAACP and its counsel to represent the Class; A judgment in favor of the NAACP and the putative Class against Defendants; Declaring that WELLS FARGO’s practices, as described herein, violate the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Civil Rights Act; A judgment awarding the NAACP and Class Members costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees and other costs; A judgment granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity; A judgment granting declaratory and injunctive relief and all relief that flows from such injunctive and declaratory relief; A judgment or other order granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper; and
20 Original Class Action Complaint
Enjoining the complained of conduct and Ordering WELLS FARGO to modify its lending practices to comport with the law. The NAACP and the Class request that the Court exercise its equitable jurisdiction and order WELLS FARGO, its agents, subsidiaries, and affiliated companies to cease and desist from the unlawful conduct described above, and hereafter modify their lending practices to conform with statutory requirements. The NAACP and the Class further request that the Court order WELLS FARGO, its agents, subsidiaries, and affiliated companies to establish and publish informative materials and programs to fully inform African Americans about their rights to equal treatment with respect to home loans and subprime loans. The NAACP further requests that the Court retain jurisdiction on an ongoing basis in order to ensure and, where necessary, enforce compliance.
_________________________________ Brian S. Kabateck KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP NAACP FEAZELL & TIGHE LLP LAW OFFICES OF GARY L. BLEDSOE WEBB, CASON & COVICH, P.C Attorneys for Plaintiff, NAACP, on Behalf of Itself and Its Members
21 Original Class Action Complaint
AboutBrowse booksSite directoryAbout ScribdMeet the teamOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsPartnersPublishersDevelopers / APILegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightSupportHelpFAQAccessibilityPressPurchase helpAdChoicesMembershipsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsCopyright © 2016 Scribd Inc. .Terms of service.Accessibility.Privacy.Mobile Site.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaOriginal.complaint.against.wells.fargo.bank.Wells.fargo.home.Mortgage by sigmarick916 viewsEmbedRelated interestsWells Fargo, Mortgage Loan, Loan, Subprime Lending, Mortgage LawDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
Documents similar to Original.complaint.against.wells.fargo.bank.Wells.fargo.home.MortgageDiesel v. Wells Fargo (Complaint)by bamlawcaGordon v. Wells Fargo (Complaint)by bamlawca1 STAR AND ALANS MOTION TO DECLARE ORDERS AND JUDGEMENTS VOIDby earthicaBooks similar to Original.complaint.against.wells.fargo.bank.Wells.fargo.home.MortgageFrom Foreclosure to Fair Lending: Advocacy, Organizing, Occupy, and the Pursuit of Equitable Creditby Janis BowdlerThe ABA Consumer Guide to Mortgage Modifications: How to Lower Your Mortgage Payments with the Home Affordable Modification Programby Dean Allen KackleyTo Write in the Light of Freedom: The Newspapers of the 1964 Mississippi Freedom Schoolsby William SturkeyBooks about LoanAccess to Financial Services in Brazil: by World Bank PublicationsThe Borrowers Bibleby Todd GehrkePrimed to Perform: How to Build the Highest Performing Cultures Through the Science of Total Motivationby Neel Doshi