Hernandez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 ALICIA HERNANDEZ, EMMA WHITE, KEITH LINDNER, TROY FRYE, 11 No. C 18-07354 WHA COSZETTA TEAGUE, IESHA BROWN, 12 JOHN and YVONNE DEMARTINO, ROSE WILSON, TIFFANIE HOOD, GEORGE 13 and CYNDI FLOYD, DEBORA GRANJA, ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY and DIANA TREVINO, individually and on APPROVAL OF CLASS 14 behalf of all others similarly situated, SETTLEMENT 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 18 Defendant. 19 20 In this breach of contract class action, plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary 21 approval of a proposed class settlement agreement. For reasons stated on the record, plaintiffs’ 22 unopposed motion is GRANTED. 23 The background of this action has been set forth in a prior order and needs not be 24 discussed in detail herein (see Dkt. No. 217). A prior order appointed Debora Granja and Sandra 25 Campos as class representatives and Gibbs Law Group LLP and Paul LLP as class counsel, and 26 certified the following nationwide class under FRCP 23(b)(3) (Dkt. No. 217 at 4): 27 to the requirements of government-sponsored enterprises (such as 1 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Home 2 Affordable Modification Program (HAMP); (ii) were not offered a home loan modification or repayment plan by Wells Fargo due to 3 excessive attorney’s fees being included in the loan modification decisioning process; and (iii) whose home Wells Fargo sold in 4 foreclosure. 5 Following class certification, the parties reached a proposed settlement agreement 6 mediated under the supervision of Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu (see Dkt. No. 269-2). “A 7 settlement should be approved if ‘it is fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable.’” Torrisi v. 8 Tuscan Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Preliminary 9 approval is appropriate if “the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, 10 || informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant 11 preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, and falls within the range «= 12 || of possible approval.” In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F.Supp.2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. g 13 2007) (Chief Judge Vaughn Walker). v 14 For reasons stated on the record, the proposed settlement falls within the range of 3 15 possible approval. Accordingly, this order preliminarily APPROVES the proposed class 16 settlement, subject to further review at the at the final approval hearing. The claim-form for the 2 17 severe emotional distress fund and the proposed form of notice, to be administered by JND Legal 18 Administration, are also APPROVED. Cathy Yanni is hereby APPOINTED special master for 19 processing class members’ claims for damages under the severe emotional distress fund. Class 20 counsel shall submit an undertaking by Yanni accepting the terms of her assignment. 21 The previous deadline (April 25) for mailing class notice is hereby VACATED (see Dkt. 22 || No. 267), and plaintiffs’ proposed schedule (see Dkt. No. 276-1 at 6) is hereby APPROVED. 23 Pursuant to said schedule, the final approval hearing will be held on AUGUST 20. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: April 19, 2020. 26 AM ALSU 27 NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28