This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Banking
Discrimination
Equal Credit Opportunity Act

Eduardo Pena, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Published: Feb. 5, 2021 | Result Date: Jan. 8, 2021 | Filing Date: Jul. 16, 2019 |

Case number: 19-cv-04065-MMC Settlement –  $1,185,000

Judge

Maxine M. Chesney

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jahan C. Sagafi
(Outten & Golden LLP)

Rachel W. Dempsey
(Towards Justice)

Ossai Miazad
(Outten & Golden LLP)

Michael N. Litrownik
(Outten & Golden LLP)

Brian J. Shearer
(Justice Catalyst Law)

Craig L. Briskin
(Justice Catalyst Law)

Benjamin D. Elga
(Justice Catalyst Law)


Defendant

Jamie D. Wells

K. Issac deVyver
(McGuireWoods LLP)

Karla L. Johnson
(McGuireWoods LLP)


Facts

Eduardo Pena was born in Mexico and a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals participant who received a Social Security number and federal work authorization in or around 2012. In 2018, Pena submitted an online application for an auto loan from Wells Fargo. When the online application requested information regarding Pena's citizenship, Pena selected "non-resident alien." After finishing the application, a Wells Fargo representative called Pena asking him for a copy of Pena's work permit. When Pena provided his work permit, the Wells Fargo representative denied Pena's auto loan application. Plaintiff Pena filed a lawsuit against defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for alienage discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant's policies of making plaintiff ineligible to apply for an auto loan because plaintiff was not a United States citizen or permanent resident was a violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied plaintiff's contentions.

Result

The parties entered into a settlement agreement. Under the settlement agreement, defendant agreed to extend loans through its direct auto line of business to current and valid DACA recipients on the same terms and conditions as U.S. citizens. Defendant will not consider DACA as a factor in evaluating credit risk or in underwriting, which benefits all DACA recipients nationwide. The maximum monetary value of the settlement is $1,185,000, including up to $630,000 in payment to class members. In addition, plaintiffs' counsel will be awarded $500,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. Moreover, $50,000 will be awarded for settlement administration expenses and a $5,000 service award will be awarded to the named plaintiff.


#136548

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390