The U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes might not have turned out to be the class action silver bullet that some had anticipated, but that’s little consolation to plaintiffs’ lawyers who brought claims against Wells Fargo over allegedly discriminatory subprime lending. On Tuesday San Francisco federal Judge Maxine Chesney rejected the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, ruling that the proposed class of more than 1 million black and Hispanic homeowners didn’t survive the certification standard for commonality set out by the Supreme Court.
Plaintiff lawyers at Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint and Roddy Klein & Ryan moved to certify the class way back in October 2010, citing the very decision that the Supreme Court overturned in June: a ruling by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirming certification of the mammoth Dukes class. But following the high court’s 5-4 reversal in June, Wells Fargo’s lawyers at Reed Smith asserted that the plaintiffs’ arguments for certification had been “discredited.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
