Recent Favorable Wells Fargo Ruling In Overdraft Fees Class Action
By Terry Walpole
December 11, 2024
In Penuela et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al,[1] filed in February 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “District Court”), the class plaintiffs alleged that Wells Fargo violated numerous laws, including Regulation E’s requirement that financial institutions provide a complete, clear, and easily understandable disclosure document before charging overdraft fees on one-time debit card and ATM transactions. In a win for Wells Fargo, the District Court on November 6th issued an Order[2] that will transfer the case to the Southern District of California to be consolidated with the earlier filed Mosley v. Wells Fargo & Co.,[3] a case that involves similar Plaintiffs’ claims.
The significance of the ruling is that in Mosely, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the presiding Sothern District of California Court in compelling claimants to return to arbitration, stating that the parties had “clearly and unmistakably” delegated questions about arbitrability to the arbitrator.[4]
The Penuela Court found that the first-to-file rule[5] factors warranted a transfer to the Southern District of California even though the Mosley case was closed. The Penuela Court reasoned that it did not know of any authority that provided a case cannot be related to one that has been closed. In consolidating the Mosley and Penuela cases, the Penuela Court also reasoned:
- There is no dispute that Mosley was filed first.
- There is no dispute that the Penuela and Mosley cases involve substantially similar issues and parties as follows:
- The named plaintiffs in each case are subject to the same arbitration agreements with Wells Fargo;
- The named plaintiffs in each case are claimants in the same arbitration proceedings;
The named plaintiffs in each case are subject to the same Process Arbitrator Order; and
- Both cases assert violations of Regulation E, among others. More importantly, both cases challenge the arbitration proceedings and the Process Arbitrator Order, resulting in the respective motions to compel arbitration.
The Order continues that both ”Mosely and Penuela bring similar claims on behalf of a similar group of plaintiffs, and both actions seek to avoid arbitration and the requirements of the Process Arbitrator Order. Thus, the same issues are being raised here that were raised in Mosley. As to judicial efficiency, while discovery has not proceeded in either case, this is because of the underlying issue of whether the parties must go to arbitration. As the Mosley court has already grappled with this issue, it would be more efficient for the same court to decide the matter rather than require a new court to familiarize itself with the facts and legal issues.”
The Penuela Court further concluded that transfer is warranted as “there is a clear indication of forum shopping” given that Plaintiffs’ counsel already litigated the same issues in Mosely.
[1] Penuela et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al, CA U.S. Dist. Ct., North 4:24-CV-00766, February 8, 2024
[2] Ibid, Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Transfer, November 6, 2024.
[3] Mosley et al v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al, CA U.S. Dist. Ct., South 3:22-CV-01976.
[4] Mosley, U.S. Ct. of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, March 7, 2024, 2024 WL 977674, and Mosley, May 1, 2023, 2023 WL 3185790.
[5] The first-to-file rule doctrine provides that when actions involving nearly identical parties and issues have been filed in two different district courts, the court that first acquires jurisdiction usually retains the suit to the exclusion of the other court. The reasoning for this doctrine is to manage similar and overlapping cases across multiple courts.
About the Author
Terry Walpole
Terry Walpole is a veteran Paralegal at SW&M with over 25 years of experience in financial institution law. The firm relies on his keen research skills, wide knowledge base, and continuing education to remain up to date with all laws […]
Learn More