Rodriguez v. National City Bank
277 F.R.D. 148
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege a pattern or practice of FHA and ECOA discrimination by National City Bank and National City Corporation through a discretionary pricing policy causing disparate impact on minority borrowers.
- Plaintiffs moved for final approval of settlement and class certification, and for attorneys’ fees, which the court DENIED.
- The operative complaint (Second Amended) added two plaintiffs and National City’s successor, The PNC Financial Services Group; First Franklin-related claims were severed from this case.
- Discovery produced HMDA data for over two million loans (2001–2008), including APR, rates, borrower demographics, and underwriting terms.
- Mediation led to a proposed nationwide settlement in May 2010; preliminary approval granted July 2010 and final approval briefing occurred through December 2010, with post‑Dukes briefing in 2011.
- The court conducted a Rule 23 analysis, applying Dukes and related authority, and concluded the proposed settlement class failed commonality and typicality, denying final approval and related fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement class meets Rule 23(a) commonality and typicality post-Dukes. | Plaintiffs contend common questions exist across the class due to alleged discriminatory pricing. | Defendants argue disparate-impact claims vary with loan officers, undermining commonality. | Commonality and typicality not satisfied. |
| Whether the settlement class satisfies Rule 23(a) numerosity and adequacy. | Plaintiffs point to 153,000 potential members as numerosity and adequate representation by counsel. | Defendants contend differences among class members impair adequacy. | Numerosity met but adequacy insufficient due to lack of common issues. |
| Whether Rule 23(b) requirements for a settlement class are met. | Plaintiffs seek approval of settlement class under Rule 23(b) for settlement purposes. | Defendants contend the class would not maintain predominance or superiority post‑Dukes. | Rule 23(b) requirements not satisfied for settlement. |
| Whether Wal‑Mart v. Dukes governs the outcome of class certification in this FHA/ECOA case. | Dukes should not prevent certification if common questions exist. | Dukes requires a rigorous analysis showing a common contention that can drive resolution for all class members. | Dukes governs; court finds no commonality sufficient under Dukes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (requires rigorous analysis; commonality limited to classwide questions that yield common answers)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (settlement class considerations and fairness)
- In re Community Bank of N. Va., 418 F.3d 277 (3d Cir. 2005) (standard for assessing settlement class fairness and certification)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Litig., 148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998) (class certification prerequisites in complex settlements)
- Eisenberg v. Gagnon, 766 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1985) (typicality and adequacy considerations for class representatives)