Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit comprised of three classes against Defendant-lenders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691-1691f, and federal ...
read more >
Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit comprised of three classes against Defendant-lenders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691-1691f, and federal civil rights statutes, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the two Defendant-lenders engaged in redlining and refused to extend credit to predominantly minority areas of Dallas.
On June 18, 1985, U.S. District Court Judge Buchmeyer certified one class under Rule 23(b) of loan applicants in a predominantly Mexican-American neighborhood who were actually or constructively denied loans by one of the Defendant-lenders. Judge Buchmeyer refused to certify a class of Plaintiffs who had not actually applied for a loan from either Defendant-lender. Judge Buchmeyer also refused to certify a class of loan applicants against the smaller of the two Defendant-lenders because the element of numerosity was not satisfied. Fischer v. Dallas Federal Sav. & Loan Asso., 106 F.R.D. 465 (N.D. Tex. 1985).
A jury trial led to a verdict for the Defendant-lenders. On January 15, 1988, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that the Plaintiff-Appellants had failed to preserve objections to the District Court's evidentiary rulings excluding Plaintiffs' offered evidence. Fischer v. Dallas Federal Sav. & Loan Assoc., 835 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1988).
Andrew Nash - 06/02/2008
compress summary
