Maystrenko v. Wells Fargo, N.A

Background

Alexandr Maystrenko and Ekaterina Maystrenko alleged that Wells Fargo maintained policies limiting credit cards, checking accounts, and personal loans to United States citizens or lawful permanent residents. They alleged that the bank categorically excluded some noncitizens from banking services.

According to the complaint, Wells Fargo denied Ekaterina Maystrenko’s online applications for a cash-back credit card on two occasions in 2020 because she was not a permanent United States resident. Wells Fargo also denied Alexandr Maystrenko a checking account and personal loan on grounds related to noncitizen status. The plaintiffs alleged that these policies and practices violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which protects the right to make and enforce contracts without discrimination based on alienage, and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits covered businesses from denying full and equal services based on citizenship or immigration status. They sued on behalf of themselves and proposed nationwide and California classes.

Wells Fargo’s Motion

Wells Fargo moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because Alexandr Maystrenko had not applied in person for a checking account after the bank invited him to do so. Wells Fargo also moved under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint did not plausibly allege discrimination because the bank could lawfully consider immigration status when providing credit and banking services.

Standing Ruling

The court denied the Rule 12(b)(1) challenge. The standing argument addressed only Alexandr Maystrenko’s claim concerning the checking-account application; Wells Fargo did not challenge his standing regarding other services or Ekaterina Maystrenko’s standing.

The court treated the challenge as a facial attack on standing, meaning it accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences for the plaintiffs. Relying on the reasoning of a Ninth Circuit decision issued while the motion was pending, the court concluded that a plaintiff can suffer a concrete injury when a bank allows United States citizens to apply online but requires noncitizens to appear at a branch. The possibility that Alexandr might ultimately have received the same account did not eliminate the alleged discriminatory injury.

Pleading Ruling

The court also denied the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. At this stage, a complaint must contain enough factual allegations to make the claim plausible, assuming the alleged facts are true.

The court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged alienage discrimination under Section 1981. The complaint alleged that Wells Fargo expressly denied their applications because they were not United States citizens. That allegation was sufficient at the pleading stage to allege that alienage was the “but-for” cause of the loss of a legally protected contractual right. The court rejected Wells Fargo’s suggestion that the denials might instead have resulted from nondiscriminatory factors such as creditworthiness, explaining that such factual issues could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

The court also held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged claims under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. It explained that citizenship and immigration status are grounds identified in the statute, so Wells Fargo’s arguments about legitimate business reasons did not warrant dismissal at this stage. The court further concluded that Wells Fargo’s reliance on regulations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act did not address the complaint’s central allegation: a policy and practice of denying banking services based on alienage.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion was: “The motions to dismiss are denied.” Judge James Donato therefore denied Wells Fargo’s motion under Rule 12(b)(1) and its motion under Rule 12(b)(6), allowing the plaintiffs’ claims to proceed beyond the dismissal stage.