On July 12, 2007, four named plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on behalf of all black consumers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Countrywide Bank and its two wholly-owned subsidiaries, under under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA") and the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants maintained a pattern or practice that had a discriminatory impact on black consumers in their home financing policies and practices. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' policy authorizing unchecked, subjective surcharge of additional points and fees to an otherwise objective risk-based financing rate, had a discriminatory impact on black home mortgage loans applicants, making them more likely to pay higher interest rates and charges than similarly situated white applicants. The plaintiffs sought injunctive, declaratory and monetary relief.

On September 10, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On July 30, 2008, the Court (Judge Nancy Gertner) issued an order denying the motion.

In 2008, the plaintiffs have moved for consolidated or coordinated pre-trial proceedings of the present litigation with two other class-wide actions against Countrywide and its subsidiaries (Garcia v. Countrywide Financial Corp., C.A. No. 5:07-1161 (C.D. Cal.); Jenkins v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., C.A. No. 1:08-2935 (N.D. Ill.)). The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a transfer order and centralized the three cases in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Judge John G. Heyburn II was assigned to the case. The cases were associated under a docket 3:08-MD-1974. The case then proceeded into discovery.

On June 13, 2011, the case was stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). On October 13, 2011, the Court (Judge John G. Heyburn II) issued an order that, in light of the decision in Wal-Mart, the plaintiffs did not satisfy the commonality requirement. The plaintiffs had not identified the common method of exercising discretion that would discriminate against the class members in a similar fashion. The plaintiffs appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit issued its decision on January 15, 2013. The District Court's denial of class certification was affirmed.

On August 9, 2013, the four named plaintiffs entered separate stipulations to dismiss the case with prejudice, without costs and right of appeal. On August 12, 2013, the Court issued an order granting the stipulations and dismissing the case with prejudice.

Zhandos Kuderin - 07/28/2014


compress summary