Wells Fargo Lawsuit

Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Michael Fuller, Oregon Bar No. 09357

Lead Attorney for Plaintiff
Eric Olsen, Oregon Bar No. 783261
David Johnson, Oregon Bar No. 123553
Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.
Portland, Oregon 97204
michael(W,undcrdo gla wycr. com
Direct 503-201-4570
Page 1 of 30
FILED04 JLN 7 1510:55USDC~
Christina Stephenson, Oregon Bar No. 102287

Stephenson Law, LLC
Robert Le, Oregon Bar No. 094167
The Law Office of Robert Le
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

EX REL. DUKE TRAN,
Case No. 3:15-cv-979

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff-Relator,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
The Family and Medical Leave Act

The Oregon Family Leave Act
ORS 659A.199
ORS 659A.030
The False Claims Act
Defendant.
Filed Under Seal
Demand for Jury Trial
COMPLAINT - Page 1
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
lll SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 2 of 30
1.
SUMMARY OF CASE
Duke Tran was a humble, hardworking family man, who had overcome many obstacles
to establish himself in the banking industry. Tran was honest and forthright. He had worked at
Wells Fargo for over 10 years as a model employee in its home equity department.
In 2014, Tran began to ask questions after stumbling upon a secret Wells Fargo policy
that he felt compromised his personal ethics and violated the laws governing mortgage servicing.
See, e.g., Exhibit 1- Wells Fargo Internal Policy Email.
Wells Fargo's internal policy required its employees to unfairly deceive its customers,
and the United States, as to the quality of Wells Fargo's loan documents, in violation of
American common law, the Dodd-Frank Act, and Oregon's Unfair Trade Practices Act.
When Tran continued to express concerns about its secret policy, Wells Fargo began a
campaign designed to discredit Tran and ultimately force him out of the company. Wells Fargo
illegally retaliated against Tran throughout 2014 and wrongfully terminated his employment on
November 12, 2014.
Now, having no other choice to make things right, Tran files this complaint to recover
fair compensation for Wells Fargo's retaliation and wrongful termination. Tran also seeks to take
back over $1.4 billion on behalf of the American taxpayers; paid by the United States on account
of Wells Fargo's unfair deceptive mortgages practices.
By filing this complaint, Tran exposes Wells Fargo's secret internal policy to the public
for the first time.
COMPLAINT - Page 2
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 3 of 30
2.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
Plaintiff-relator Mr. Duke Tran ("Tran") brings this action against defendant Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") for violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C.
2601 et seq. ("FMLA"), the Oregon Family Leave Act, ORS 659 A.183 ("OFLA"), ORS
659A.199, ORS 659A.030, and the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., and 31 U.S.C.
3730(h).
3.
JURISDICTION AND THE PARTIES

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1367
because Tran's claims under the FMLA and False Claims Act arise under federal law, and Tran's
claims arising under state law form part of the same case and controversy and all claims arise
from the same nucleus of operative facts. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332 because true diversity of the parties exists and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 including actual damages, punitive damages, civil penalties,
reasonable attorney fees and costs.
4.
Tran was a citizen of the United States and an individual person residing in Oregon at all
times material.
COMPLAINT - Page 3
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 4 of 30
5.
Wells Fargo was a citizen of South Dakota and a national association bank at all times
material.
6.
The District of Oregon is the proper venue for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391
because Wells Fargo employed Iran in Oregon, a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to Iran's claims occurred in Oregon, Wells Fargo maintains offices in Oregon, Wells
Fargo can be found in Oregon, Wells Fargo transacts business in Oregon, and Wells Fargo's
presentation of its Servicer Participation Agreement ("SPA") and claims to the United States in
connection with the Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP") were continuous and
systematic, and involved customers who resided in Oregon.
7.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Wells Fargo hired Iran on or around February 16, 2004 as a Collector 2 at its call center
in Vancouver, Washington. Iran was successful in this role and promoted to a Collector 3.
Throughout Iran's time with Wells Fargo he had a strong performance and he received several
pay raises.
8.
In or around November of 2012, Wells Fargo transferred its collections department,

including Iran, from Vancouver, Washington to Beaverton, Oregon. Thereafter, Iran applied to
transfer to a different department within the company.
COMPLAINT - Page 4
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 5 of 30
9.
On or around March 10, 2013, Tran transferred to the position of Home Equity Customer
Service Specialist 4 in the home equity department.
10.
In his position as Customer Service Specialist 4, Tran was supervised by Sam Alshehri
until approximately December of 2013. In or around December of 2013, Peter LeDonne
("LeDonne"), the Loan Document Specialist Supervisor, became Tran's supervisor.
11.
Wells Fargo employed at least 50 individuals within a 75-mile radius of Tran's
workplace and employed at least 25 employees in the state of Oregon, at all times material.
12.
At all material times, Tran was supervised by Wells Fargo's employees or agents and
Tran relied on the actual or apparent authority of Wells Fargo's employees, supervisors, and
management to act for Wells Fargo.
13.
LeDonne supervised a unit in the home equity department that consisted of about 14
employees in Beaverton, and his department supervised another unit in Des Moines, Iowa.
Tran's job within this unit was to address telephone questions and complaints from customers
with Wells Fargo home mortgages.
COMPLAINT - Page 5
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 6 of 30
14.
Most calls that Tran received involved customers who had received letters from Wells
Fargo indicating their mortgage balloon payments were due within 90 days, and that if they did
not pay, their accounts would be referred to collections for foreclosure. When Wells Fargo
received calls from customers with balloon payments due, its policy was to offer its customers
financial products to avoid foreclosure, including HAMP loan modifications.
15.
In or around December of 2013, Tran received the first of what would be many similar
phone calls. A husband and wife with an alleged balloon mortgage payment due called Wells
Fargo and spoke with Tran. When Tran looked in the Clipper system for their loan contract he
realized it was missing or nonexistent, and reported this to them.
16.
Tran promptly reported the issue with the customers to his supervisor and others within
Wells Fargo. The next day, Tran received multiple emails from Wells Fargo headquarters that
the loan documents were missing and that the company did not have the customers' contract.
Despite this, Wells Fargo directed Tran to deceive the customers and treat the loan like a balloon
payment was due.
17.
Tran was uncomfortable with this directive and reported to his supervisor that he believed
it would be unethical and illegal for him to mislead customers. Tran also told his supervisor,
COMPLAINT - Page 6
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-20 l-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 7 of 30
LeDonne, that he had already told the customers that the loan documents were missing. LeDonne
said he would meet with his managers and get back to Tran on what to do.
18.
The next day, LeDonne met with Tran and berated Tran for telling the customers the truth
about their loan documents. LeDonne told Tran that Iran's job was in jeopardy and that Tran
had placed Wells Fargo at risk by providing this information to the customers. LeDonne went on
to say that Janice Norris ("Norris") and Vice President Lending Manager, Debbie Clausen
("Clausen") had directed that Tran have no more contact with these customers.
19.
From then on, Tran received many more calls from customers whose loan documents
were missing or nonexistent. Tran began to notice many of the loans with missing documents
had been acquired by Wells Fargo from First Union or Sun Trust Bank. As he was directed,
whenever customers called in and Wells Fargo's loan documents were missing, Tran sent the
matter to a supervisor.
20.
On or around March 4, 2014, Tran received a call from a co-worker from Iowa. The coworker asked Tran about the customers Tran told that Wells Fargo had no loan documents for
their loan. The customers had called for an update on their loan. Tran reported that he had
referred the customers to his supervisors. Tran then asked his team lead, Heather Stone
("Stone"), about the issue. Stone told Tran that she planned to follow-up with the customers but
it appeared they had hired an attorney.
COMPLAINT - Page 7
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 8 of 30
21.
Later that same day, Iran was called in to meet with his supervisor, LeDonne. When
Iran walked into his office, LeDonne immediately blew up at him. LeDonne told Iran, "See, I
told you before that we'll get sued and now they've hired an attorney!" LeDonne threatened Iran
that he would be fired if he ever told another customer the truth about missing or nonexistent
loan documents.
22.
On or around April21, 2014, Iran received an email about a Wells Fargo internal policy
stating that when Wells Fargo has lost loan documents, especially those securing a home,
employees are to not share this information with customers under any circumstance.
23.
Iran was immediately uncomfortable with this secret internal policy and went to
LeDonne to discuss it. Iran stressed that it was not right or legal to lie to customers. LeDonne
cut Iran off and told him that the policy directive came from his boss, Kimberly Thrush
("Thrush"), and senior management.
24.
In May and June of 2014 Iran noticed LeDonne was treating him worse than other
employees. LeDonne was cold to Iran and would not help him when he had questions.
25.
On or around June 20, 2014, Iran requested two days off to care for his son, who had a
serious health condition. LeDonne denied Iran's request because he had training on the
COMPLAINT - Page 8
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 9 of 30
requested days. Tran argued that his son needed him but LeDonne told Tran he would be written
up if he did not come to work. Ultimately Tran's leave was designated as protected OFLA leave
by human resources but LeDonne was still furious with Tran. LeDonne told Tran that the next
time Tran did this he would be fired. Tran tried to explain but LeDonne cut him off. LeDonne
told Tran, who is Vietnamese, "You and your damn Asian accent. I never understand you!" Tran
was shocked and hurt by LeDonne's racist comment. LeDonne did not apologize, and instead
stormed off, leaving Tran stunned and worried for his job.
26.
On or around July 22, 2014, LeDonne told Tran he needed to meet with the Lending
Manager, Thrush. Tran met with Thrush and was presented a "Memo of Understanding." The
document appeared to be disciplinary and stated that Tran would be disciplined if he failed to
attend the next scheduled training. Tran refused to sign the memo and explained his absence
from the last training was legally protected. Tran then told Thrush that he was going to report
this incident to human resources because he felt it was discriminatory.
27.
On or around July 23, 2014, Tran complained to human resources about discrimination
by LeDonne. Among other things, Tran referenced LeDonne's racist comment regarding his
accent. Tran spoke to two different human resources representatives about his concerns
regarding LeDonne. Tran also shared that he feared he would be retaliated against because of his
complaints of illegal activity.
COMPLAINT - Page 9
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 10 of 30
28.
Tran received no resolution to his discrimination complaint; instead, on or around August
26, 2014, Tran was called into a meeting with LeDonne. In the meeting LeDonne issued Tran an
"Informal Warning" stating that his performance scores in June, July and August were below
95%. LeDonne said that Tran's calls had been reviewed by a quality assurance manager and it
has been concluded that Tran was performing at 94% accuracy. Tran was skeptical and asked
LeDonne if he could review the data from which this conclusion was reached. LeDonne became
angry and told Tran that if he did not sign the warning then he would be subject to additional
discipline.
29.
On or around August 28, 2014, Tran contacted an even higher manager, Senior Vice
President of Home Lending Portfolio Operations Management, Alan Rose ("Rose"). Tran
reported to Rose about LeDonne's illegal behavior. Rose told Tran he would handle Tran's
complaints when he returned from vacation in September. In the meantime, Tran also contacted
Clausen and human resources to continue to express his concerns about the work environment.
30.
Tran did not hear anything back from Rose, Clausen, or human resources. Instead, on or
around September 9, 2014, Thrush and LeDonne called Tran in for a meeting. Both managers
told Tran that he needed to sign the warning from LeDonne. Tran told Thrush and LeDonne that
he had contacted Rose, Clausen, and human resources and was waiting to hear back from them.
Thrush and LeDonne were visibly upset by this revelation and told Tran that his complaints to
COMPLAINT - Page 10
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 11 of 30
these managers were unnecessary. They then asked what Iran had reported and Iran told them
that it was private. Iran then requested to return to work and they agreed.
31.
On or around September 24, 2014, Iran was allowed to listen to the calls that were the
basis of his warning. Iran and LeDonne listened together and at the end LeDonne agreed that
Iran's performance was higher than the required 95%. In the face of this irrefutable evidence,
LeDonne agreed to withdraw the warning, and LeDonne admitted fault.
32.
The next day, on or around September 25, 2014, Iran met with Rose and Clausen. Iran
shared with them the conclusion that his previous warning was baseless. Tran reported that he
felt as though he was being discriminated against by LeDonne. Iran also explained he feared
further retaliation as a result of his reports of illegal activity and he wanted to transfer to a new
supervisor.
33.
Rose responded to Iran's report by discouraging Iran from complaining to him and
human resources. Rose told Iran his complaints distracted them all from doing their work. Rose
told Iran that time is money and Iran was costing the company money by bringing forward his
complaints. Rose then ended the meeting by telling Iran that if he focused on his job everything
would work out.
COMPLAINT - Page 11
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 12 of 30
34.
On or around September 29, 2014, Clausen asked Tran if he planned to try to transfer to
another position within Wells Fargo and Tran replied that he did.
35.
On or around October 8, 2014, Tran arrived at work to find his computer disassembled.
Tran asked a co-worked what happened and the co-worker said LeDonne and Thrush had taken
the computer apart for an unknown reason. Tran tried to ask LeDonne about the computer but
LeDonne just told Tran to go away. Tran put his computer back together and returned to work.
36.
Over the next several weeks Tran applied to internal positions throughout Wells Fargo.
On or around November 4, 2014, Tran requested time off to attend a second interview with
Wells Fargo's home preservation department. LeDonne attempted to interfere with Tran's ability
to get the position by denying Tran's request for time off. However, Tran had human resources
intervene and was able to attend the interview.
37.
On or around November 12, 2014, Tran had a second interview with another unit within
Wells Fargo. The interview was for the same day and LeDonne again refused Tran's request for
time off for the interview. Before Tran was able to resolve the issue again LeDonne called Tran
in to discuss a customer call. LeDonne told Tran he was being investigated for "misbehavior" in
that he did not say "hello" to a customer at the onset of the call. Tran asked to hear the phone call
COMPLAINT- Page 12
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 13 of 30
but LeDonne refused. LeDonne told Tran they would meet with the rest of the management team
at the end of the day.
38.
Later that day, Tran was called into a meeting with LeDonne, Thrush, and Norris.
LeDonne told Tran that based on the misbehavior they discussed earlier, Wells Fargo was
terminating his employment. LeDonne then stood up and told Tran he needed to escort him out
of the building.
39.
After Tran left the building he called human resources and asked why he had been
terminated. The human resources representative told Tran that LeDonne reported he was
terminated for "call avoidance."
40.
Tran was again skeptical, as he had never avoided a call. In addition, he did not believe
that he had engaged in the misbehavior of not saying "hello" to a customer. Further, Tran's
termination was not conducted in accordance with Wells Fargo's customary progressive
discipline procedure.
41.
Wells Fargo's behavior as alleged above constituted a systematic campaign designed to
discredit Tran and force him out of the company. Wells Fargo ultimately retaliated against Tran
by wrongfully terminating his employment after he questioned its internal policy of fraudulently
deceiving its customers.
COMPLAINT - Page 13
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 14 of 30
42.
Wells Fargo's policy of unfair deception negatively affected not only its employees and
customers but also the American taxpayers. From 2009 until March 31, 2015, the United States
paid out over $1.4 billion in HAMP incentives based on Wells Fargo loan modification
applications. As of the date of this complaint, Wells Fargo has completed more than a million
mortgage modifications through HAMP. Of the $1.4 billion paid based on Wells Fargo
applications, only a relatively small fraction ($246,871,173.00) went to Wells Fargo's customers.
The largest portions went directly to corporate investors ($825,776,921.00) and Wells Fargo
($359,151,497.00).
43.
Many of Wells Fargo's RAMP modifications, including some of the loans Iran was
involved with, were based on materially false representations made by Wells Fargo about the
quality of its mortgage loan documents.
44.
Wells Fargo fraudulently used the RAMP modification process to tum incomplete loan
files into enforceable mortgages. Wells Fargo intentionally misled its customers and the United
States by failing to disclose known material defects in its loan documents. Specifically, Wells
Fargo's secret internal policy involved deceiving customers and the United States when Wells
Fargo knew or suspected its loan files were missing documents.
COMPLAINT- Page 14
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 15 of 30
45.
The United States would not have paid any of the $1.4 billion in Wells Fargo HAMP
incentives had it known of Wells Fargo's secret internal policy when Wells Fargo applied to
participate as a servicer in HAMP back in 2009. Wells Fargo entered its SPA in 2009 with intent
to illegally profit by unfairly deceiving its customers and the Untied States about the quality of
its loan documents.
46.
Similarly, the United States would not have paid HAMP incentives on any of the Wells
Fargo modification applications had it known Wells Fargo was using the HAMP process to tum
unenforceable documents into enforceable documents, or that Wells Fargo was intentionally
concealing that its loan files were missing necessary loan documents.
47.
Wells Fargo's secret internal policy proves it knew its representations to its customers
and the United States were false when Wells Fargo made the representations. Specifically, Wells
Fargo's internal policy email that Tran has made public for the first time in this complaint proves
Wells Fargo's misrepresentations were not isolated incidents but a pattern and practice of unfair
deception, in knowing violation of American common law, the Dodd-Frank Act, and the Oregon
Unfair Trade Practices Act, ORS 646.608(1)(u), by reference to OAR 137-020-0805, which
prohibits bad faith mortgage servicing practices. Wells Fargo is a "mortgage loan servicer" as
that term is defined at OAR 137-020-0800.
COMPLAINT - Page 15
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 16 of 30
48.
On July 30, 2008, Congress enacted The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
(the "Recovery Act"), creating the Federal Housing Finance Agency (the "FHF A"). The FHF A
was created in part to supervise mortgage servicers like Wells Fargo. The Recovery Act also
gave the United States Treasury (the "Treasury") the authority to advance funds for the purpose
of stabilizing the domestic housing market. The Recovery Act raised the Treasury's debt ceiling
by $800 billion, to a total of$10.7 trillion.
49.
On September 6, 2008, about a month after the FHF A was created, the financial crisis
worsened, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac entered receivership. On October 8, 2008, Congress
enacted The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the "Stabilization Act"), which
authorized the Troubled Asset Relief Program ("T ARP").
50.
Pursuant to sections 101 and 109 of the Stabilization Act, the Treasury established the
Making Home Affordable ("MHA") program and other programs to stabilize the housing market
by facilitating the modification of home mortgages and other loss mitigation options. These
programs included HAMP, which reduced mortgage payments to affordable levels for qualifying
borrowers and provided incentive payments to corporate investors and mortgage servicers like
Wells Fargo.
COMPLAINT - Page 16
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 17 of 30
51.
To participate in HAMP, Wells Fargo entered an SPA with the Treasury in 2009, and
later updated its SPA in 2010. Wells Fargo's SPA provided incentive payments to Wells Fargo
and its corporate investors to modify mortgage loans under various MHA loss mitigation
programs. Wells Fargo's participation in HAMP required that its loan documents, including its
notes, mortgages, trust deeds, and other security documents, be fully enforceable. Wells Fargo's
SPA, and individual Wells Fargo HAMP applications, constituted the presentment of a claim for
the purposes of the False Claims Act.
52.
Wells Fargo acquired First Union in 2001, and several other banks through its fire sale
acquisition of Wachovia in late 2008, including South Trust (acquired by Wachovia in 2004),
Western Financial (acquired by Wachovia in 2006), Golden West Financial (acquired by
Wachovia in 2006), and World Savings Bank (acquired by Wachovia in 2007). Upon inspecting
its recently-acquired mortgage loan portfolios in 2009, Wells Fargo became aware various loan
files had missing or incomplete mortgage documents and otherwise legally unenforceable
security documents. Wells Fargo knew that these unenforceable mortgage documents did not
qualify for HAMP modifications pursuant to its SPA but Wells Fargo, pursuant to its secret
internal policy, caused customers to apply for HAMP modifications regardless. From 2009 to the
date of this complaint, Wells Fargo illegally profited by taking HAMP incentives, and causing
HAMP incentives to be paid, on non-qualifying loans, and encouraged customers to apply for
HAMP modifications on non-qualifying loans, some of which Wells Fargo knew had
COMPLAINT - Page 17
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Ill SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 18 of 30
incomplete, missing, forged or improper security documents, without telling the customers or the
United States the truth about the quality of its loan document files.
53.
Prior to the filing of this complaint, there has been no "public disclosure," as that term is
used in 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4)(A), of the allegations or transactions upon which this action is
based that involve Wells Fargo's internal policy to unfairly deceive its customers or the United
States. Tran is the "original source" of this information and proof of Wells Fargo's secret internal
policy, as that term is used in 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4)(B).
54.
All administrative prerequisites to filing this action have been timely satisfied. Pursuant
to 31 U.S.C. 3730(b), contemporaneous to filing this complaint in camera under seal, and
serving this complaint on the United States, Tran intends to disclose all material evidence and
information in his possession to the United States, with notice that the evidence and information
could require segregation from documents available to the public. Contemporaneous to the
eventual service of this complaint on Wells Fargo, Tran intends all copies of any Wells Fargo
documents to be returned to Wells Fargo.
55.
This complaint is based upon Tran's personal knowledge as to his behavior, and upon
information and belief as to the behavior of others. At all times prior to filing this complaint,
Tran possessed no original Wells Fargo documents. Prior to his wrongful termination from Wells
Fargo, and before retaining counsel, Tran copied certain Wells Fargo documents on one isolated
COMPLAINT - Page 18
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 19 of 30
occasion, to preserve evidence for the United States. Any Wells Fargo documents disclosed to
the United States or returned to Wells Fargo were quarantined from Tran's counsel, and were
solely handled by an independent third-party litigation support services company. The litigation
support company did not review or otherwise obtain any information from any copies of Wells
Fargo documents. Other than the single one-paragraph secret internal policy email sent to Tran
from his supervisor at Wells Fargo, attached as Exhibit 1, at no time did counsel forTran ever
review or possess any original Wells Fargo documents or copies of any Wells Fargo documents.
As of the date of this complaint, neither Tran or his counsel possess any original Wells Fargo
documents. Other than Exhibit 1, at no time has Tran's counsel learned of any information from
Wells Fargo documents that may be considered confidential. At no time has Tran or Tran's
counsel ever learned of any Wells Fargo information that might be considered privileged or trade
secret.
56.
As a direct and proximate result of Wells Fargo's illegal retaliation and wrongful
termination as alleged in this complaint, Tran suffered economic loss including and not limited
to back pay, front pay, lost retirement benefits, lost insurance benefits, damage to career, and
expenses.
57.
termination as alleged in this complaint, Tran suffered emotional harm including and not limited
to embarrassment, anxiety, depression, lack of confidence in the banking system, low self-
COMPLAINT - Page 19
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 20 of 30
esteem, inability to sleep, lack of enjoyment of activities, upset stomach, anger, frustration,
hopelessness, and other negative emotions consistent with wrongful termination.
58.
Wells Fargo should pay punitive damages in accordance with the harm it caused Iran, in
an amount that will deter it from breaking the law in the future. Wells Fargo is a national
financial services company, providing banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, and consumer
and commercial finance services through more than 8,700 locations. Wells Fargo maintains an
office in Beaverton, Oregon, where Iran worked. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s parent company,
Wells Fargo & Co. is worth over $280 billion. Upon discovery of information that Wells Fargo
& Co., or other Wells Fargo related entities are proper parties in interest in this action, Iran
intends to amend this complaint to substitute or add defendants.
59.
termination as alleged in this complaint, Iran incurred attorney fees and costs.
COMPLAINT - Page 20
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 21 of 30
60.
CAUSES OF ACTION
CLAIM ONE
The Family and Medical Leave Act
Medical Leave Interference, Discrimination and Retaliation
29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.
Tran re-alleges all of the above paragraphs by reference.
61.
Wells Fargo's behavior as alleged above violated the FMLA because it interfered with,
discriminated, and retaliated against Tran for utilizing his protected medical leave by attempting
to discipline, harass, and by eventually terminating Tran.
62.
Tran had been employed by Wells Fargo for 12 months and had performed at least 1,250
hours of service for Wells Fargo during the preceding 12 month period, at all times material.
63.
Tran's son suffered from a serious health condition at all times material.
64.
Tran utilized and attempted to utilize leave that was protected under the FMLA.
65.
Wells Fargo's behavior as alleged above violated 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., causing Tran
to suffer damages.
COMPLAINT - Page 21
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 22 of 30
66.
As a result of Wells Fargo's violation of the FMLA, Tran has incurred and continues to
incur economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial. Tran will continue to have lost
income and benefits in the future.
67.
Wells Fargo acted willfully and with knowledge that its actions were in violation of
FMLA and with reckless disregard of whether it was violating the FMLA, entitling Tran to
liquidated damages for Wells Fargo's violation of his FMLA rights in an amount equal to the
sum of Tran's lost wages and benefits, plus prejudgment interest pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
2617(a)(l)(A)(iii), and reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 2617(a)(3).
68.
CLAIM TWO
The Oregon Family Leave Act
Interference, Discrimination and Retaliation
ORS 659A.183

69.
Tran worked for a period of at least 180 calendar days immediately preceding his OFLAqualifying leave, and worked on average at least 25 hours per week at all times material.
70.
Tran's son suffered from a serious health condition at all times material.
COMPLAINT - Page 22
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 23 of 30
71.
Tran utilized and attempted to utilize leave that was protected under the OFLA.
72.
As alleged above, Wells Fargo denied, interfered with, discriminated and retaliated
against Tran for utilizing protected medical leave by taking adverse employment actions against
Tran, including attempting to discipline him, harassing, and ultimately terminating him.
73.
As a result of Wells Fargo's violation of the OFLA, Tran has incurred and continues to
incur economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial. Tran will continue to have lost
income and benefits in the future.
74.
Pursuant to ORS 20.107 and ORS 659A.885, Tran is entitled to recover actual damages,
punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, and costs.
75.
CLAIM THREE
Whistleblower Retaliation
ORS 659A.199
76.
Wells Fargo's behavior as alleged above violated ORS 659A.199 because it retaliated
against Tran in the terms and conditions of his employment by terminating him in substantial
COMPLAINT - Page 23
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 24 of 30
part because he opposed and reported in good faith information he believed to be illegal behavior
and in violation of state and federal law governing mortgage servicing.
77.
Wells Fargo's violation of ORS 659A.l99 directly and proximately caused Tran
economic loss and emotional harm as alleged above, in amounts to be decided by the jury.
78.
Wells Fargo's behavior as alleged above was willful, malicious, and done with reckless
indifference to Tran's state-protected rights, and Wells Fargo should be assessed punitive
damages in an amount to be determined by the jury.
79.
80.
CLAIM FOUR
Race and National Origin Discrimination and Harassment
ORS 659A.030(a) and (b)
81.
Wells Fargo's behavior as alleged above violated ORS 659A.030(a) and (b) because
Wells Fargo treated Tran adversely with respect to compensation and other terms of employment
COMPLAINT - Page 24
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 25 of 30
by discharging Iran, and Iran's race and national origin were substantial factors in Wells
Fargo's adverse treatment.
82.
Wells Fargo's violation of ORS 659A.030 directly and proximately caused Iran
83.
indifference to Iran's state-protected rights, and Wells Fargo should be assessed punitive
84.
Pursuant to ORS 20.107 and ORS 659A.885, Iran is entitled to recover actual damages,
85.
CLAIM FIVE
Retaliation
ORS 659A.030(f)
86.
Iran re-alleges all of the above paragraphs by reference.
87.
Wells Fargo's behavior as alleged above violated ORS 659A.030(f) because it treated
Iran adversely with respect to compensation and other terms of employment by discharging
COMPLAINT - Page 25
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 26 of 30
Tran, and Wells Fargo subjected Tran to retaliation based on his opposing unlawful practices,
including and not limited to racial harassment and discrimination, national origin harassment and
discrimination, and fraud, and Tran' s opposition of unlawful practices was a substantial factor in
Wells Fargo's adverse treatment.
88.
Wells Fargo's violation of ORS 659A.030 directly and proximately caused Tran
89.
indifference to Tran's state-protected rights, and Wells Fargo should be assessed punitive
90.
COMPLAINT - Page 26
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 27 of 30
91.
CLAIM SIX
Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy

92.
At all materials times, the public policy of Oregon prohibited an employer from
retaliating against an employee for opposing or reporting in good faith what he believed to be
illegal behavior and policies in violation of state and federal law governing mortgage servicing.
93.
This public policy is embodied in the common law, statutes, and regulations of the State
of Oregon and the United States including, but not limited to ORS 659A.030, ORS 659A.199,
ORS 659A.233, OAR 839-005-0000 et seq. and OAR 839-010-0000 et seq., the FMLA, and the
OFLA.
94.
Wells Fargo, acting through its agents and employees, violated the above public policies
by retaliating against Tran for opposing and making good faith complaints about unlawful
behavior.
95.
Wells Fargo's discharge of Tran was taken in retaliation forTran's pursuit and exercise
of his rights, which are of important public interest.
COMPLAINT - Page 27
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 28 of 30
96.
Wells Fargo's wrongful retaliation and discharge directly and proximately caused Iran
97.
indifference to Iran's state-protected rights, and Wells Fargo should be assessed punitive
98.
As a result of Wells Fargo's behavior as alleged above, Iran is entitled to recover actual
damages, punitive damages, and pursuant to ORS 20.107, reasonable attorney fees, and costs.
99.
CLAIM SEVEN
False Claims Act
31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.
Iran re-alleges all of the above paragraphs by reference.
100.
Wells Fargo's behavior as alleged above violated the False Claims Act because Wells
Fargo knowingly, and in deliberate ignorance and reckless disregard for the truth, intentionally
made false representations about the quality of its mortgage loan documents to the United States,
and Wells Fargo intentionally presented claims, including its SPA and individual Wells Fargo
HAMP applications, and encouraged its customers to present claims under HAMP, that Wells
COMPLAINT - Page 28
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 29 of 30
Fargo knew contained false representations about the quality of Wells Fargo's loan documents to
the United States, and which were capable of influencing the United States, and did actually
materially influence and cause the United States to pay over $1.4 billion in HAMP incentives
that it otherwise would not have paid, from 2009 to the date of this complaint.
101.
Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., Iran is entitled to recover civil penalties and
damages on behalf of the United States, and pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3730(h), Iran is entitled to
recover all relief necessary, including maximum damages, attorney fees, and costs, caused by
Wells Fargo's violation of the False Claims Act and subsequent retaliatory actions.
102.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
WHEREFORE, after an order determining that Wells Fargo violated the Medical Leave
Act, the Oregon Family Leave Act, ORS 659A.199, ORS 659A.030, and the False Claims Act,
Iran seeks judgment in his favor against Wells Fargo for the following:
A. For a permanent injunction prohibiting Wells Fargo from retaliating against other
employees who refuse to lie to customers about the quality of its loan documents;
B. Actual damages including economic losses and emotional harm caused by Wells
Fargo's illegal retaliation and wrongful termination, in amounts to be decided by the
jury;
COMPLAINT - Page 29
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-20 l-4570
Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR
Document 1
Filed 06/04/15
Page 30 of 30
C. Punitive damages in relation to the harm Wells Fargo caused Tran, in an amount to be
decided by the jury that will deter Wells Fargo from breaking the law in the future;
D. Reasonable attorney fees and costs in an amount to be decided by the Court after trial;
E. For a permanent injunction prohibiting Wells Fargo from continuing to unfairly
deceive its customers and the United States about the quality of its loan documents,
and for maximum damages, civil penalties, costs, attorney fees, and expenses
available under 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq. and 31 U.S.C. 3730(h); and
F. Any other equitable relief this Court may determine to be fair and just.
DATED: June 4, 2015

RESPECTFULLY FILED,
s/ Michael Fuller
Michael Fuller, Oregon Bar No. 09357
Lead Attorney for Plaintiff
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
michael@JJnderqqgl(lw_yer,com
Direct 503-201-4570
COMPLAINT - Page 30
OlsenDaines, P.C.
US Bancorp Tower
Direct 503-201-4570

Wells Fargo Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wells Fargo Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:15-cv-00979-BR

Michael Fuller, Oregon Bar No. 09357

FILED04 JLN 7 1510:55USDC~

Christina Stephenson, Oregon Bar No. 102287

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case No. 3:15-cv-979

The Family and Medical Leave Act

JURISDICTION AND THE PARTIES

In or around November of 2012, Wells Fargo transferred its collections department,

Tran re-alleges all of the above paragraphs by reference.

Tran re-alleges all of the above paragraphs by reference.

DATED: June 4, 2015

You might also like