Filed Date: Jan. 12, 2023
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about unlawful redlining in Los Angeles County. Redlining is a practice whereby lenders deny or discourage applications, or avoid providing loans and other credit services, in neighborhoods based on the race, color, or national origin of the residents of those neighborhoods. On January 12, 2023, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed this lawsuit and a proposed consent order in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The DOJ sued City National Bank under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and sought an injunction prohibiting the Bank from continuing its discriminatory practice, a declaratory judgment stating that the defendant had violated the law, monetary damages, a civil penalty, and any other appropriate relief. The DOJ claimed that the defendant discriminated against borrowers in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods by: discouraging loan applications from and making fewer loans to residents in those neighborhoods, failing to train staff and maintain adequate fair-lending policies, and failing to provide affordable loan options, in violation of the FHA and ECOA. The DOJ also claimed that the defendant intentionally engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminatory conduct, and implemented discriminatory policies with reckless disregard for the rights of individuals secured by law. The case was assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee.
The consent order was approved by the court on January 30, 2023, (the “Effective Date”) and required City National Bank to: 1) submit a Fair Lending Status Report and Compliance Plan within 150 days of the Effective Date; 2) invest at least $29.5 million in a loan subsidy fund for residents of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Los Angeles County; 3) invest $750,000 for the development of community partnerships to provide services that increase access to residential mortgage credit in those neighborhoods; 4) invest $500,000 for advertising and outreach in those neighborhoods; 5) invest $500,000 for consumer financial education; and 6) establish a Fair Lending Oversight Committee to monitor the Bank’s fair lending risks.
The consent order was to remain in effect for five years, or until three months after the Bank demonstrated full compliance. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. Starting one year after January 30, 2023, the bank was to submit annual reports to the DOJ demonstrating its progress in complying with the terms of the order, an assessment of the extent to which each obligation was met, an explanation of why the Bank fell short of meeting its goals for any particular component, and recommendations for additional actions to fulfill remaining terms. A final report was to be delivered to the DOJ at least ninety days prior to the expiration of the order.
Summary Authors
Simran Takhar (3/12/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66717318/parties/united-states-v-city-national-bank/
Gee, Dolly Maizie (California)
Flagg, Kinara Ann (California)
Hikida, Katherine M (California)
Niles, Sara Lewenberg (California)
Montoya, Joseph Neill (California)
Gee, Dolly Maizie (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66717318/united-states-v-city-national-bank/
Last updated March 10, 2024, 4:04 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 12, 2023
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
United States
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice 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
City National Bank, 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: $31.25 million
Order Duration: 2023 - None
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements
Issues
General:
Discrimination-area:
Discrimination-basis:
Race:
National Origin/Ethnicity: