The city of Oakland can continue to press claims that Wells Fargo & Co.’s alleged shoddy mortgage lending practices resulted in a wave of foreclosures and shriveled property tax revenues after a federal judge rejected the bank’s motion to dismiss June 15.
Oakland provided significant statistical analysis to show how discriminatory lending practices at Wells Fargo could have resulted in a spike in foreclosures among black and Hispanic borrowers, U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said.
Allowing Oakland’s property tax claims could potentially put Wells Fargo on the hook for millions of dollars in damages.
Although Wells Fargo can dispute the city’s statistics, those arguments are better addressed as a question of fact at trial rather than at the initial pleadings stage, Chen wrote.
“On balance, the property-tax injury survives the pleading stage because Oakland’s proffered statistical analyses have the potential to provide certainty to the damages calculation,” he wrote.
Oakland, San Francisco-based Wells Fargo’s neighbor, alleged in a September 2015 lawsuit that discriminatory lending practices targeting black and Hispanic borrowers prior to the financial crisis led to a wave of foreclosures that caused the city to lose large amounts of property tax revenues and spend millions on upkeep of the foreclosed properties.
Wells Fargo is ready to continue to defend against Oakland’s claim, bank spokesman Tom Goyda said in a June 18 email statement to Bloomberg Law.
“While the court’s decision allows the lawsuit to continue to the next phase, this does not suggest that any of claims ultimately will prevail, and we are prepared to defend our record as a fair and responsible lender,” Goyda said.
The case was put on hold while the U.S. Supreme Court considered similar litigation filed by the city of Miami against Bank of America Corp. Municipalities could sue mortgage lenders over alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act if they are able to provide statistical backing, the high court ruled in May 2017.
That ruling allowed several cases brought by municipalities against big banks to move forward, including the Oakland’s property tax claims.
Oakland City Attorney Barbara J. Parker welcomed the June 15 ruling, which she said was a direct result of last year’s Supreme Court ruling in Miami’s case against Bank of America.
Wells Fargo needs to be held accountable for its actions, she added.
“Not only have these predatory and racially discriminatory business practices increased poverty and wiped out or drastically reduced wealth for minority communities while bankers prospered, the City of Oakland has suffered great financial harm as a result of these racially discriminatory practices and the ensuing foreclosure crisis,” Parker said in a statement emailed to Bloomberg Law.
Other claims brought by the city were not as successful.
Chen refused to allow Oakland’s damages claims related to upkeep costs to move forward, but said the could seek declarartory or injunctive relief.
Oakland could refile its damages claims if it provides a stronger statistical backing, Chen wrote.
Chen also rejected Oakland’s claims that Wells Fargo’s lending practices hobbled the city’s efforts to promote fair housing efforts, although Oakland was given the opportunity to refile those claims.
Wells Fargo is represented by Proskauer Rose LLP, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, and K&L Gates LLP.
The case is: City of Oakland v. Wells Fargo & Co. , N.D. Cal., No. 15-cv-04321, motion to dismiss denied in part, granted in part 6/15/18 .
To contact the reporter on this story: Evan Weinberger in New York at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Ferullo at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2018 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)