## Facts

- GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. operated as a wholesale mortgage lender that funded loans originated by independent mortgage brokers.
- GreenPoint set baseline “par” pricing for loans but permitted brokers to mark up interest rates and/or fees above par.
- Ana and Ismael Ramirez and Jorge Salazar, African-American and Hispanic borrowers, obtained GreenPoint-funded broker-originated mortgages during the relevant period.
- Plaintiffs alleged GreenPoint’s discretionary pricing structure, though facially neutral, produced higher loan prices for Black and Hispanic borrowers than for similarly situated white borrowers.
- Plaintiffs relied on statistical analyses comparing loan pricing across borrowers while controlling for credit and loan characteristics.
- Plaintiffs asserted disparate-impact claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982.
- Plaintiffs sought certification of a class of Black and Hispanic borrowers who obtained broker-originated, GreenPoint-funded mortgage loans during the class period.
- The case reached the court on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 after denial of a motion to dismiss.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(a)’s numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements.
2. Whether Rule 23(b)(3) was met because common questions about the discretionary pricing policy and its disparate impact predominated over individual issues and a class action was superior.
3. Whether liability could be tried with common policy and statistical proof rather than borrower-by-borrower inquiries.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
- The court found numerosity satisfied given the large number of affected minority borrowers.
- The court held commonality satisfied because claims turned on a uniform discretionary pricing system and whether it created unjustified pricing disparities and whether less discriminatory alternatives existed.
- The court held typicality satisfied because named plaintiffs and class members were subject to the same pricing policy and alleged the same type of injury from its disparate impact.
- The court held adequacy satisfied because the named plaintiffs had no disabling conflicts and counsel could represent the class.
- The court held Rule 23(b)(3) predominance satisfied because classwide proof could address whether the policy caused statistically significant disparities and whether those disparities were justified.
- The court held superiority satisfied because individual recoveries were likely too small to support separate suits and a single action would reduce duplicative litigation and inconsistent results.

## Legal Principles

- A class may be certified under Rule 23(a) when plaintiffs show numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy through evidence tied to a uniform policy affecting the proposed class.
- For Rule 23(b)(3), predominance is satisfied when the central liability questions concern a common policy and are susceptible to common proof, including statistical evidence, even if damages may require individualized calculations.
- In disparate-impact fair-lending cases, delegated pricing discretion can present a common, certifiable issue when plaintiffs challenge the lender’s discretion-granting structure and support the claim with classwide data and expert analysis.

## Conclusion

The court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class of Black and Hispanic borrowers, concluding that common questions about GreenPoint’s broker discretionary pricing policy and its alleged disparate impact could be resolved with classwide statistical and policy evidence and predominated over individualized issues.


Ramirez v. GreenPoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., 268 F.R.D. 627 (N.D. Cal. 2010)