Hernandez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Opinion

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 ALICIA HERNANDEZ et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-07354-WHA 10 individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, [PROPOSED] ORDER 11 GRANTING PRELIMINARY 12 Plaintiffs, APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL CLASS 13 v. SETTLEMENT 14 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 15

16 Defendant.

18 In this breach of contract class action, Plaintiffs have filed a motion for 19 preliminary approval of a proposed $21,865,690 supplemental class settlement to 20 address 741 class members who fell within the class definition in the original class 21 settlement agreement, but were not part of the original list of borrowers provided by 22 Wells Fargo and identified in the class list submitted to the Court after final approval of 23 the original settlement. For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiffs’ unopposed 24 motion is GRANTED. 25 The background of this action has been set forth in a prior order and needs not be 26 discussed in detail herein (see Dkt. No. 217). A prior order appointed Debora Granja and 27 Sandra Campos as class representatives and Gibbs Law Group LLP and Paul LLP as 1 class counsel, and certified the following nationwide class under FRCP 23(b)(3) (Dkt. 2 No. 217 at 4):

3 All persons in the United States who between 2010 and 2018 (i) qualified 4 for a home loan modification or repayment plan pursuant to the requirements of government-sponsored enterprises (such as Fannie Mae and 5 Freddie Mac), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the U.S. 6 Department of Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP); (ii) were not offered a home loan modification or repayment plan 7 by Wells Fargo due to excessive attorney’s fees being included in the loan 8 modification decisioning process; and (iii) whose home Wells Fargo sold in foreclosure. 9 After new class members were identified, the parties agreed to the supplemental 10 settlement which provides new class members compensation for economic harm using 11 the same formula as in the first settlement. The supplemental settlement also provides 12 new class members the same opportunity to apply for additional settlement amounts for 13 severe emotional distress. New class members will have the opportunity to object or opt 14 out of the supplemental settlement. 15 “A settlement should be approved if ‘it is fundamentally fair, adequate and 16 reasonable.’” Torrisi v. Tuscan Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir. 1993) 17 (citation omitted). Preliminary approval is appropriate if “the proposed settlement 18 appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no 19 obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class 20 representatives or segments of the class, and falls within the range of possible approval.” 21 In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F.Supp.2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (Chief 22 Judge Vaughn Walker). 23 For reasons stated on the record, the proposed settlement falls within the range of 24 possible approval. Accordingly, this order preliminarily APPROVES the proposed class 25 settlement, subject to further review at the final approval hearing. The claim form for the 26 severe emotional distress fund and the proposed form of notice, to be administered by 27 JND Legal Administration, are also APPROVED. Cathy Yanni is hereby APPOINTED as 1 special master for processing class members’ claims for compensation under the severe 2 emotional distress fund. Plaintiffs’ proposed schedule (see Dkt. No.312-5 at 7) is hereby 3 APPROVED. Pursuant to said schedule, the final approval hearing will be held on 4 December 2, 2021 at 11 a.m. for an in-person hearing. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: J ul y 2 6, 20 21 9 HON. WILLIAM H. ALSUP 10 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27