Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 274 F.R.D. 525

Background

Plaintiffs move to certify classes in Minter and Petry; Minter seeks class for RESPA, RICO, CPA and related claims; Petry seeks class for FFA, CPA and related common-law claims.
Prosperity Mortgage Company is a joint venture formed in 1993 by Wells Fargo (then Norwest) and Long & Foster, operating as a mortgage lender funded via a Wells Fargo line of credit.
Plaintiffs allege Prosperity is a sham affiliated business arrangement (ABA) intended to disguise referral fees and kickbacks, affecting Prosperity’s independence and legitimacy.
Judge Gauvey’s discovery order limited loan-file evidence to a random sample of 200 loans, affecting precertification proof and the factual record.
Judge Gauvey also held that equitable tolling may apply to RESPA and FFA claims, influencing the proposed class periods; the court addresses tolling in ruling on class definitions.
The court bifurcates the Minter class into Timely and Tolling groups for RESPA claims, certifies a Timely class (sham-ABA, 8(c)(4)(A) disclosures, and RICO) and denies an 8(a) class at this stage; Petry’s class is certified for FFA and related claims under Maryland law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 23 adequacy and predominance in Minter	Minter seeks class-wide relief on RESPA/8(c) and RICO claims; common questions predominate over individual issues.	Defendants argue require numerous transaction-specific inquiries and tolling complications defeat predominance.	Predominance satisfied for Timely Class; class certified for sham-ABA, 8(c)(4)(A) and RICO claims.
Effect of equitable tolling on class definition in Minter	Equitable tolling allows inclusion of claims arising outside limitations period.	Tolling logic cannot justify an unbounded class; must be limited and representative must be shown.	Court bifurcates into Timely and Tolling classes; Tolling Class not certified at this stage, but potential for later motion with proper representative.
Sufficiency of Petry class under Maryland Finder’s Fee Act (FFA)	Prosperity charged finder’s fees in many transactions; class-wide proof possible via HUD-1 statements.	Scope of permissible fees under FFA subsection (b) requires transaction-specific analysis.	FFA class certification granted for Petry; theory rests on Prosperity acting as broker/front and improper finder’s fees; damages largely liquidated.
Commonality and damages in RICO and RESPA claims	Class-wide evidence supports reliance-inference for RICO; RESPA claims rely on Prosperity’s ABA structure.	Reliance and damages may require individualized proofs; risk of non-cohesive class.	Common questions predominate; class-wide reliance inference allowed for RICO; RESPA claims proceed on class-wide theory.
Class definition scope for Minter (timing and scope of Prosperity’s operations)	Broad class across Prosperity’s lifespan captures all relevant claims; efficiency favors broad class.	Historical changes in Prosperity’s operations may complicate certification; need engineering of a narrower class.	Court certifies the Timely RESPA/RICO/8(c)(4) class defined as: all consumers obtaining a federally related mortgage loan originated by Prosperity funded via Wells Fargo line of credit on or after December 26, 2006.

Key Cases Cited

Robinson v. Fountainhead Title Group, Inc., 252 F.R.D. 275 (D. Md. 2008) (commonality/predominance and class certification in RESPA context)
Robinson II, 257 F.R.D. 92 (D. Md. 2009) (RICO class actions; reliance inference allowed for class actions)
Gunnells v. Healthplan Services, Inc., 348 F.3d 429 (4th Cir. 2003) (predominance and damages in Rule 23(b)(3) actions)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (class action certification standards and predominance/superiority framework)
Chisolm v. TranSouth Financial Corp., 184 F.R.D. 556 (E.D. Va. 1999) (numerosity and commonality considerations in class actions)