Filed Date: July 27, 2022
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On July 27, 2022, the United States of America and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that Trident Mortgage Company engaged in a pattern or practice of lending discrimination by "redlining" in the Philadelphia metropolitan area from 2015 to 2019. Plaintiffs brought this suit under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), ECOA’s implementing regulation (Regulation B), and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA). The Bureau claimed that Trident’s conduct was not justified by a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason or business necessity and was not necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory interest. Rather, that Trident denied or discouraged applications by avoiding providing loans and other credit services in neighborhoods based on the race, color, or national origin of the residents of those neighborhoods. Plaintiffs sought (1) injunctive relief ordering that the defendant end its practice of discriminating and discouraging applicants based on race, color, or national origin, (2) a declaratory judgment that the defendant's acts and practices violated the FHA and ECOA, and (3) monetary damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. This case was assigned to District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter.
On September 14, 2022, the court entered a consent order, requiring the defendant to invest $18.4 million in funding a Loan Subsidy Program to increase the credit extended in predominantly neighborhoods of color in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, $750,000 for the development of community-based organizations or governmental organizations to provide financial, homeownership, or foreclosure prevention services to those neighborhoods, $875,000 for advertising and outreach in those neighborhoods, and $375,000 for consumer financial education. Trident was also required to pay a civil money penalty of $4 million to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In addition, Trident had to retain an independent credit-needs-assessment consultant to create a report on the credit needs of predominantly neighborhoods of color within the Philadelphia metropolitan area. Under the agreement, Trident's staff will also receive bi-annual training on topics such as implicit racial bias and how to detect, prevent, and remedy redlining from a third-party trainer. To monitor Trident's progress, Plaintiffs will be able to interview any Trident employee on the status of compliance and request additional reports that must be submitted by Trident within 30 days.
The court retained jurisdiction over the matter for purposes of enforcement.
Summary Authors
Kathleen Lok (9/20/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64435577/parties/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-v-trident-mortgage-company-lp/
Niles, Sara Lewenberg (Pennsylvania)
SULLIVAN, GERALD B. (Pennsylvania)
HALL, KARI (Pennsylvania)
PITTINSKY, DAVID H. (Pennsylvania)
SHANNON, JESSICA M (Pennsylvania)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64435577/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-v-trident-mortgage-company-lp/
Last updated April 7, 2024, 3:10 a.m.
State / Territory: Pennsylvania
Case Type(s):
Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 27, 2022
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The United States of America and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Non-DOJ federal government plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Trident Mortgage Company LP, Private Entity/Person
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Fair Housing Act/Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.
Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. § 1691
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: 24,400,000
Order Duration: 2022 - None
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Issues
General:
Discrimination-area:
Discrimination-basis: