On August 5, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion for class certification in a case where the plaintiffs alleged a bank illegally discriminated against non-white home loan applicants. The named plaintiffs, all Black or Latino Americans, brought claims individually and as representatives of a proposed nationwide class of similar applicants for original purchase, refinance and other home mortgage loans. The court found that the record did not establish the element of commonality as required by Rule 23(a), so certification was denied.

The plaintiffs claimed the bank engaged in “digital redlining” and disproportionately denied applications from minority applicants, imposed delays in processing their applications, and extended less favorable terms to them than to similarly situated white applicants. The legal claims alleged violations of ECOA, the Fair Housing Act, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California’s Unfair Competition Law.

The court emphasized that, without “some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together” (emphasis omitted), it would be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims for relief would produce a common answer to the crucial question of why an applicant was denied. As a result, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.