City of Miami Gardens v. Wells Fargo & Co.
931 F.3d 1274
11th Cir.2019Background
- The City of Miami Gardens sued Wells Fargo under the Fair Housing Act alleging redlining/reverse-redlining and that minority borrowers in Miami Gardens received higher-cost loans than similarly situated white borrowers.
- The district court bifurcated discovery: initial discovery and summary-judgment briefing were limited to loans originated June 13, 2012–June 12, 2014 (the two-year limitations window); the City received data on 153 such loans and deposed witnesses.
- Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment raising (inter alia) lack of Article III standing and that the City’s evidence failed to show disparate-treatment or disparate-impact within the limitations period.
- The district court granted summary judgment on the merits (disparate-treatment and disparate-impact), relying in part on the City’s Rule 30(b)(6) testimony and finding the City’s evidence insufficient; it did not resolve standing.
- On appeal, the panel addressed (1) whether the ordinary summary-judgment standard governs standing when discovery/briefing were limited and (2) whether the City produced evidence of injury and causation sufficient to satisfy standing.
- The Eleventh Circuit held the ordinary summary-judgment standard applies, concluded the City failed to show injury and traceable causation, vacated the merits judgment, and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs proof of Article III standing when discovery and summary-judgment briefing were limited? | City: limited scope of discovery and prior scheduling made application of a more lenient standard necessary or remand for further discovery. | Wells Fargo: ordinary summary-judgment standard applies to standing; issue was litigated and noticed. | Ordinary summary-judgment standard applies; no special leniency because City failed to timely press outstanding discovery under Rule 56(d). |
| Did the City establish Article III standing (injury in fact and traceable causation)? | City: pointed to one delinquent loan (HC2) in the limitations period and ten pre-period foreclosures to show injury or a continuing violation that causes municipal injury. | Wells Fargo: none of the 153 loans in period foreclosed; City lacks proof of imminent injury or traceable effect on tax revenue/municipal costs. | No standing: HC2’s delinquency is speculative, and City offered no hedonic/statistical proof tying foreclosures or value loss to Wells Fargo conduct. |
| Was the City barred from supplementing its Rule 30(b)(6) testimony with other evidence? | City: sought to introduce expert analysis (Ayres) and supplement record; scheduling limited discovery on other topics. | Wells Fargo: City’s 30(b)(6) testimony conceded ignorance, so it cannot now rely on new evidence to contradict that testimony. | Court did not need to decide Rule 30(b)(6) issue for jurisdictional ruling; regardless, City failed to establish standing on the existing record. |
| Were the City’s disparate-treatment and disparate-impact proofs sufficient on the merits? | City: expert Ayres identified two allegedly higher-cost minority loans (HC2, HC6) vs. NHW8 comparator; argued continuing-violation doctrine. | Wells Fargo: differences explained by lender credits and a promotional discount; its expert showed plausible nondiscriminatory causes; City lacked statistical or causal evidence for disparate impact. | Panel: even if reached, City’s evidence insufficient—disparate-treatment lacks a convincing inference of intent given contrary examples; disparate-impact abandoned or lacks statistical causation evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (recognizing continuing-violation doctrine for Fair Housing Act).
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing elements and burdens at successive litigation stages).
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (threatened injury must be certainly impending).
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (court must first satisfy itself of jurisdiction).
- Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (procedural fairness when court sua sponte raises standing/prudential issues).
- Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332 (lenient standing standard in preliminary-injunction context where defendant did not contest standing and plaintiffs had limited opportunity).
- Bischoff v. Osceola County, 222 F.3d 874 (summary-judgment stage requires evidence creating genuine issue on standing).
- Munoz-Mendoza v. Pierce, 711 F.2d 421 (summary-judgment standing proof via affidavits or submissions).