The City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
Plaintiff: The City of Farmington Hills Employess Retirement System
Defendant: Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
Case Number: 0:2010cv04372
Filed: October 26, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Office: DMN Office
County: Hennepin
Presiding Judge: Joan N. Ericksen
Presiding Judge: Susan R. Nelson
Nature of Suit: Securities/Commodities
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 77
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 18, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 686 FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT. 1. The Court, for purposes of this Final Order and Judgment (the "Judgment") adopts all defined terms as set forth in the Settlement, and incorporates them herein by reference as if fully set forth. 2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action, and all matters relating to the Settlement, as well as personal jurisdiction over all of the Settling Parties and each of the Class Members. 3. The Notice, the publication of Notice on a dedicat ed website and the notice methodology implemented pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and the Court's orders: (i) constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances to all persons within the definition of the Class; (ii) constitute d notice that was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Class Members of the pendency of the Action, of the effect of the Settlement Agreement, including releases, of their right to object to the proposed Settlement, of their rig ht to participate in the Settlement, and of their right to appear at the Final Approval Hearing; (iii) were reasonable and constituted due, adequate and sufficient notice to all persons or entities entitled to receive notice; and (iv) met all applic able requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), the Rules of the Court and any other applicable law. (See Order for additional information.) (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 8/18/2014. (BJS)
April 3, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 633 ORDER. 1. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence of Non-Wells Fargo Securities Lending Programs (Doc. No. 457 ) is GRANTED as follows: a. The Court concludes that such evidence is presumptively inadmissible pursuant to Article 4 as well as Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence on foundational grounds. Moreover, consistent with the Court's ruling in Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Doc. No. 485 at 4 (D. Minn. June 14, 2013), the Court fin ds specifically that the evidence of Non-Wells Fargo securities lending programs does not survive a Rule 403 analysis. b. Absent further order of the Court, the Court concludes that such evidence has no direct or probative relationship to Wells Fargo's Securities Lending Program ("SLP"). (See Order for additional Motion in Limine rulings.) (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 4/3/2014. (BJS)
January 14, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 439 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1. Plaintiffs' Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 15 and to Add an Additional Class Representative Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. No. 387 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The Court hereby CERTIFIES a SUBCLASS of the ERISA plans that participated in Wells Fargo's securities lending program. The following entities shall be included in the subclass: (1) Twin City Hospital Worke rs Pension Fund; (2) The Schwan Food Company Retirement Savings Plan; (3) Longview Fibre Company; (4) ABC Retirement Plan for Cooperatives; (5) Alliant Energy Master Retirement Trust Plan; (6) Bemis Company, Inc. Master Pension Trust; (7) ITT Corpora tion Employee Benefits Trust; (8) ITT Corporation ISP for Salaried Employees; (9) Les Schwab Profit Sharing Retirement Trust; (10) MDU Resources Group Inc. Master Trust; (11) Omaha Construction Industry Plans; (12) Presbyterian Healthcare Services; (13) Presbyterian Healthcare Services Employees Pension Plan; (14) Smithfield Foods, Inc. Master Trust; (15) Arizona Laborers Teamsters Local 395 Pension Trust Fund; (16) Arizona Laborers Teamsters Local 395 Defined Contribution Fund; (17) Arizona State Carpenters Defined Contribution Fund; (18) Arizona State Carpenters Pension Trust Fund; (19) Construction Industry & Laborers Health & Welfare Trust; (20) Construction Industry & Laborers Pension Trust; (21) New Mexico Electricians' Retir ement Benefit Fund; (22) New Mexico Pipe Trades Health and Welfare Trust Fund; (23) New Mexico Pipe Trades Pension Fund Plan B; (24) Operating Engineers' Local 428 Defined Contribution Fund; (25) Operating Engineers' Local 428 Pension Fund; (26) Arizona Pipe Trades Defined Contribution Trust Fund; (27) Arizona Pipe Trades Pension Trust Fund; (28) Chicago Painters and Decorators Pension Plan; (29) Denver Area Meat Cutter and Employers Pension Plan; and (30) Rocky Mountain UFCW Unions & Employers Pension Plan. b. The following entities are hereby APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVES of the ERISA subclass: (1) The Board of Trustees of the Arizona State Carpenters Pension Trust Fund; and (2) The Arizona State Carpenters Defined Contribution Trus t Fund. c. The claims of the ERISA subclass in this action shall be limited to Count I of the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 402 ): Breach of Fiduciary Duty. 2. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion for Reconsideration on Decertification of the Separately Managed Accounts (Doc. No. 417 ) is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 1/14/2014. (BJS)
September 17, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 386 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion to Decertify the Class (Doc. No. 322 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The motion for decertification is GRANTED with respect to the sixteen ERISA Plaintiffs. As such, the following entities are excluded from the Class: (1) Twin City Hospital Workers Pension Fund; (2) The Schwan Food Company Retirement Savings Plan; (3) Longview Fibre Company; (4) ABC Retirement Plan for Cooperatives; (5) Alliant Energy M aster Retirement Trust Plan; (6) Bemis Company, Inc. Master Pension Trust; (7) ITT Corporation Employee Benefits Trust; (8) ITT Corporation ISP for Salaried Employees; (9) Les Schwab Profit Sharing Retirement Trust; (10) MDU Resources Group Inc. Ma ster Trust; (11) Omaha Construction Industry Plans; (12) Presbyterian Healthcare Services; (13) Presbyterian Healthcare Services Employees Pension Plan; (14) Smithfield Foods, Inc. Master Trust; (15) Arizona Laborers Teamsters Local 395 Pension Trus t Fund; and (16) Arizona Laborers Teamsters Local 395 Defined Contribution Fund. b. As stipulated by the parties, the following seven entities are also excluded from the class: (1) IHC Foundation Inc.; (2) Mid-West Life Insurance Co.; (3) The Chesap eake Life Insurance Co.; (4) The Mega Life & Health Insurance Co.; (5) United Group Reinsurance, Inc.; (6) SIT/Kim Global Fund LLC International; and (7) SIT/Kim International Fund LLC International. c. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. 2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain of Wells Fargo's Affirmative Defenses (Doc. No. 309 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. Wells Fargo's affirmative defenses numbered 6, 7, 15, 28, 43, and 48 are hereby DISMISSED. b. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. 3. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 315 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty, MCFA, DTPA, and UTPA claims. b. The motion is DENIED AS MOOT to the extent Wells Fargo seeks judgment as to the claims of the sixteen ERISA Plaintiffs. c. The motion is GRANTED with respect to CFHERS' c laim for civil theft. As such, Wells Fargo is entitled to judgment as to Count VI of the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 277 ). 4. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Reports and Testimony of Defendant's Proposed Experts (Doc. No. 302 ) is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/17/2013. (BJS)
November 19, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 284 ORDER re 260 Objection To Discovery Ruling, filed by The City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System. 1. Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham's September 24, 2012 Order (Doc. No. 260 ) is OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham's September 24, 2012 Order (Doc. No. 235 ) is AFFIRMED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 11/19/2012. (BJS)
October 22, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 265 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 238 Motion Without Prejudice. (Written Opinion.) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 10/22/2012. (rlb)
September 24, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 235 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 212 Motion for clarification. SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. (Written Opinion). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham on 9/21/12. (RLR)
May 25, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 154 ORDER REGARDING CLASS NOTICE (see Order for details)(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 05/25/2012. (rlb)
March 27, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 120 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (Doc. No. 61 ) is GRANTED as to Count I (Breach of Fiduciary Duty), Count II (Breach of Contract), and Count III (Violation of Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Ac t Minn. Stat. § 325F.69) of Plaintiffs Class Action Complaint (Doc. No. 1, Ex. 1). 2. The following class is certified pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All participants in Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s secu rities lending program (the Program) from any time in the period January 1, 2006 to the present who suffered losses due to the Program's purchase and maintenance of high risk, long-term securities. 3. The parties shall negotiate the content of t he class notice. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, the parties shall submit a joint proposed notice to the Court. If the parties are unable to agree on the content of the notice, the parties shall each submit a proposed notice, to gether with briefing not to exceed ten (10) pages per side, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. 4. The Court appoints the City of Farmington Hill Employees Retirement System as class representative. 5. Having considered the require ments of Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court appoints Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, the Miller Law Firm, P.C., VanOverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C., and Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, as class counsel.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 3/27/2012. (BJS)
December 17, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER for Disqualification and for Reassignment. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Richard H. Kyle on 12/17/10. (kll)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: The City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: The City of Farmington Hills Employess Retirement System
Represented By: Carolyn G Anderson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
Represented By: Michael R Cashman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?