Case: Oakland v. Wells Fargo

3:15-cv-04321 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Sept. 21, 2015

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 21, 2015, the City of Oakland filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Wells Fargo & Co and Wells Fargo Bank NA under the Fair Housing Act, California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and California Government Code. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had engaged in predatory mortgage strategies that disproportionately targeted minority communities. Specifically, they alleged that the defendants had engaged in redlining and reverse redlining, causing a disproportionate number of foreclosures in minority communities and, as a result, reducing tax revenue for the City of Oakland, increasing municipal expenditures, and neutralizing the effectiveness of city fair-housing programs. Represented by the Oakland City Attorney’s office, the Center for Constitutional Litigation, and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The case was assigned to Judge Edward M. Chen.

On November 13, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the predatory sub-prime loans that the plaintiffs referred to had ceased in 2008, placing their conduct outside the two year limitation period in the Fair Housing Act. The Court directed Oakland “to amend its complaint in view of the language now in Miami and give it your best shot with as much specificity as possible in terms of the kinds of damages that you are asserting that you contend are proximately caused by the [] alleged FHA violation.”

On August 15, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint claiming that Wells Fargo’s predatory activity had continued through the time of filing and therefore was within the limitations of the Fair Housing Act.

On October 6, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, stating the plaintiffs had failed to properly show that the defendants had been the proximate cause of the injuries they alleged. On June 15, 2018, Judge Chen denied the defendants' motion to dismiss as to the claim related to reduced tax revenue and also denied the motion to dismiss as to the municipal expenditures, insofar as Oakland sought declaratory or injunctive relief. The third claim—neutralization of the city’s fair-housing program—was dismissed without prejudice.

On February 28, 2019, the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal (USCA No. 19−15169). On August 27, 2020, a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The panel affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss claims related to reduced tax revenue. The panel also affirmed the grant of defendants' motion to dismiss damage claims from increased municipal expenses. Finally, the panel reversed the denial of defendants' motion to dismiss injunctive and declaratory relief claims. Contrary to the district court's ruling, the panel held that the proximate cause directness requirement also applied to claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, not just claims for damages. The case was remanded for the district court to consider the plausibility of this claim, given that the City needed to satisfy the proximate cause directness requirement.

Following the grant of a petition to rehear the case en banc, on September 28, 2021, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Similar to the three-judge panel, the court affirmed the dismissal of the damages claim for increased municipal expenditures. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.

However, the court reversed the denial of dismissal for claims of damages from reduced tax revenue. The en banc court held that, to meet the standard for proximate cause, there must be sufficient directness from the alleged action to the alleged harm. Such directness stems from the first link in the causal chain. Downstream "ripples of harm" from defendants' actions traveled too far beyond the alleged misconduct to establish proximate cause. As a result, the City had not sufficiently plead its claim, and the case was remanded to the district court for dismissal consistent with this opinion. Costs were awarded to Wells Fargo.

	Document
3:15-cv-04321 0:19-15169	Docket [PACER] City Of Oakland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.	Sept. 28, 2021	Sept. 28, 2021 Docket
1 3:15-cv-04321	Complaint City of Oakland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.	Sept. 21, 2015	Sept. 21, 2015 Complaint
104 3:15-cv-04321	First Amended Complaint City of Oakland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.	Aug. 15, 2017	Aug. 15, 2017 Complaint
147 3:15-cv-04321	Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss City of Oakland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.	June 15, 2018	June 15, 2018 Order/Opinion
165 3:15-cv-04321	Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Amend Order to Include Certification for Interlocutory Appeal City of Oakland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.	Sept. 5, 2018	Sept. 5, 2018 Order/Opinion
73 3:15-cv-04321 0:19-15169	Opinion City of Oakland v. Wells Fargo & Company U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Aug. 26, 2020	Aug. 26, 2020 Order/Opinion 972 F.3d 1112
88 3:15-cv-04321 0:19-15169	Order City of Oakland v. Wells Fargo & Company U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	April 20, 2021	April 20, 2021 Order/Opinion 993 F.3d 1077
120 3:15-cv-04321 0:19-15169	Opinion City of Oakland v. Wells Fargo & Company U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Sept. 28, 2021	Sept. 28, 2021 Order/Opinion 14 F.4th 1030

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against Wells Fargo & Co., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-9853000.). Filed byCity Of Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Kim, Sumy) (Filed on 9/21/2015) (Entered: 09/21/2015) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER	Sept. 21, 2015	Sept. 21, 2015 RECAP
2	Proposed Summons. (Kim, Sumy) (Filed on 9/21/2015) (Entered: 09/21/2015)	Sept. 21, 2015	Sept. 21, 2015 PACER
3	Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (cjlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2015) (Entered: 09/21/2015)	Sept. 21, 2015	Sept. 21, 2015 PACER
4	Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 12/16/2015. Case Management Conference set for 12/23/2015 01:30 PM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2015) (Entered: 09/22/2015)	Sept. 22, 2015	Sept. 22, 2015 PACER
5	Summons Issued as to Wells Fargo & Co., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2015) (Entered: 09/22/2015)	Sept. 22, 2015	Sept. 22, 2015 PACER
6	ASSOCIATION of Counsel Robert S. Peck Pro Hac Vice by City Of Oakland. (Peck, Robert) (Filed on 9/22/2015) (Entered: 09/22/2015)	Sept. 22, 2015	Sept. 22, 2015 PACER
7	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice Robert S. Peck ( Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 0971-9857687.) filed by City Of Oakland. (Peck, Robert) (Filed on 9/22/2015) (Entered: 09/22/2015)	Sept. 22, 2015	Sept. 22, 2015 PACER
8	Order by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim granting 7 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Robert Peck. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2015) (Entered: 09/23/2015)	Sept. 23, 2015	Sept. 23, 2015 PACER
9	CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by City Of Oakland.. (Kim, Sumy) (Filed on 10/7/2015) (Entered: 10/07/2015)	Oct. 7, 2015	Oct. 7, 2015 PACER
10	NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua Patashnik (Patashnik, Joshua) (Filed on 10/8/2015) (Entered: 10/08/2015)	Oct. 8, 2015	Oct. 8, 2015 PACER
11	CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Wells Fargo & Co., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A... (Patashnik, Joshua) (Filed on 10/8/2015) (Entered: 10/08/2015)	Oct. 8, 2015	Oct. 8, 2015 PACER
12	NOTICE of Appearance by Terry Edward Sanchez (Sanchez, Terry) (Filed on 10/8/2015) (Entered: 10/08/2015)	Oct. 8, 2015	Oct. 8, 2015 PACER
13	CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2015) (Entered: 10/08/2015)	Oct. 8, 2015	Oct. 8, 2015 PACER
14	NOTICE of Appearance by Bart Harper Williams (Williams, Bart) (Filed on 10/8/2015) (Entered: 10/08/2015)	Oct. 8, 2015	Oct. 8, 2015 PACER
15	NOTICE of Appearance by Miriam Kim Notice of Appearance (Kim, Miriam) (Filed on 10/8/2015) (Entered: 10/08/2015)	Oct. 8, 2015	Oct. 8, 2015 PACER
16	STIPULATION to Extend Time to Respond to the Initial Complaint by 30 Days filed by Wells Fargo & Co., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Williams, Bart) (Filed on 10/8/2015) (Entered: 10/08/2015)	Oct. 8, 2015	Oct. 8, 2015 PACER
17	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Set Schedule for Motion to Dismiss and Declaration of Bart Williams in support of Stipluation filed by Wells Fargo & Co., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Williams, Bart) (Filed on 10/8/2015) (Entered: 10/08/2015) 1 Proposed Order View on PACER	Oct. 8, 2015	Oct. 8, 2015 PACER
18	ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Haywood S Gilliam, Jr for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Executive Committee on 10/9/15. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2015) (Entered: 10/09/2015)	Oct. 9, 2015	Oct. 9, 2015 PACER
19	CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FOR REASSIGNED CIVIL CASE. Notice is hereby given that a Case Management Conference has been set for December 29, 2015, before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA. Case Management Statement due by December 22, 2015. (This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2015) (Entered: 10/13/2015)	Oct. 13, 2015	Oct. 13, 2015 PACER
20	ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 17 Stipulation to Set Schedule for Motion to Dismiss (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2015) (Entered: 10/14/2015)	Oct. 14, 2015	Oct. 14, 2015 RECAP
	Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings	Oct. 14, 2015	Oct. 14, 2015 PACER
	Reset Deadlines Pursuant to Docket No. 20 : Responses due by 12/14/2015; Replies due by 1/8/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2015)	Oct. 14, 2015	Oct. 14, 2015 PACER
21	CLERK'S NOTICE. Notice is hereby given that the Case Management Conference, previously set for December 29, 2015, is vacated. (This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.) (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2015) (Entered: 10/14/2015)	Oct. 14, 2015	Oct. 14, 2015 PACER
22	MOTION to Dismiss Complaint; Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Wells Fargo & Co., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. Motion Hearing set for 2/11/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Haywood S Gilliam Jr.. Responses due by 12/14/2015. Replies due by 1/8/2016. (Attachments: # 1 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND EXHIBITS A-O THEREOF, # 2 WELLS FARGO DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES PURSUANT TO FED R. CIV. PROC. 7.1 AND CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-16;, # 3 DECLARATION OF RIO PIERCE, # 4 [PROPOSED] ORDER, # 5 Exhibit A, # 6 Exhibit B, # 7 Exhibit C through R, # 8 Proof of Service)(Williams, Bart) (Filed on 11/13/2015) Modified on 11/23/2015 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/13/2015) 1 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMIS View on PACER 2 WELLS FARGO DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES PURSUANT TO FED R. View on PACER 3 DECLARATION OF RIO PIERCE View on PACER 4 [PROPOSED] ORDER View on PACER 5 Exhibit A View on PACER 6 Exhibit B View on PACER 7 Exhibit C through R View on PACER 8 Proof of Service View on PACER	Nov. 13, 2015	Nov. 13, 2015 PACER
23	NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Paul Collins as Additional Counsel for Defendants Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Collins, Daniel) (Filed on 11/18/2015) (Entered: 11/18/2015)	Nov. 18, 2015	Nov. 18, 2015 PACER
24	Re-notice 22 Motion to Dismiss Hearing set for 2/11/2016 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam Jr.. (Williams, Bart) (Filed on 11/18/2015) Modified on 11/20/2015 (hdjS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/18/2015)	Nov. 18, 2015	Nov. 18, 2015 PACER
	Electronic Filing Error	Nov. 23, 2015	Nov. 23, 2015 PACER
	Electronic filing error. Certificate of Interested Entities Required to be Filed Separately on the Docket. Please re-file. Re: 22 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo & Co. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2015)	Nov. 23, 2015	Nov. 23, 2015 PACER
25	Certificate of Interested Entities by Wells Fargo & Co., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. identifying Corporate Parent Wells Fargo & Company for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Williams, Bart) (Filed on 11/23/2015) (Entered: 11/23/2015)	Nov. 23, 2015	Nov. 23, 2015 PACER
26	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER To Amend Briefing Schedule filed by The City of Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Peretz, Yosef) (Filed on 12/7/2015) Modified on 12/7/2015 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2015) 1 Proposed Order View on PACER	Dec. 7, 2015	Dec. 7, 2015 PACER
27	ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 26 Stipulation To Amend Briefing Schedule. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2015) Modified on 12/8/2015 (ndrS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/08/2015)	Dec. 7, 2015	Dec. 7, 2015 RECAP
	Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings	Dec. 8, 2015	Dec. 8, 2015 PACER
	Reset Deadlines Pursuant to 27 as to 22 First MOTION to Dismiss Complaint: Responses due by 12/18/2015; Replies due by 1/13/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2015)	Dec. 8, 2015	Dec. 8, 2015 PACER
28	RESPONSE (re 22 MOTION to Compel First MOTION to Dismiss Complaint ) filed byThe City of Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice)(Peretz, Yosef) (Filed on 12/18/2015) (Entered: 12/18/2015) 1 Supplement Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice View on PACER	Dec. 18, 2015	Dec. 18, 2015 PACER
29	REPLY (re 22 MOTION to Compel First MOTION to Dismiss Complaint ) filed byWells Fargo & Co., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Attachments: # 1 Reply to Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice)(Williams, Bart) (Filed on 1/13/2016) (Entered: 01/13/2016) 1 Reply to Opposition to Request for Judicial Notice View on PACER	Jan. 13, 2016	Jan. 13, 2016 PACER
30	ORDER VACATING HEARING AND DIRECTING PARTIES TO RESPOND. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 2/10/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2016) (Entered: 02/10/2016)	Feb. 10, 2016	Feb. 10, 2016 RECAP
31	NOTICE by Wells Fargo & Co., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Joint Report in Response to Court's February 10, 2016 Order (Williams, Bart) (Filed on 2/12/2016) (Entered: 02/12/2016)	Feb. 12, 2016	Feb. 12, 2016 PACER
32	ORDER OF RECUSAL. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 2/16/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2016) (Entered: 02/16/2016)	Feb. 16, 2016	Feb. 16, 2016 RECAP
33	ORDER, Case reassigned to Hon. Edward M. Chen. Hon. Haywood S Gilliam, Jr no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Executive Committee on 2/17/16. (haS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2016) (Entered: 02/17/2016)	Feb. 17, 2016	Feb. 17, 2016 RECAP
34	CLERK'S NOTICE resetting 22 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint for 4/7/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Edward M. Chen. Fully briefed.. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.), Set/Reset Deadlines as to (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2016) (Entered: 02/18/2016)	Feb. 18, 2016	Feb. 18, 2016 PACER

Case: Oakland v. Wells Fargo

3:15-cv-04321 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details