 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
BEACH MORTGAGE PRICE UNITED STATES ACT AGE NATIONAL ORIGIN LENDING PRACTICES DISCRIMINATION DEFENDANT BROKERS RACE FAIR HOUSING CREDIT LENDER MARKET RISK EMPLOYEES MORTGAGE COMPANY CIVIL RESIDES CHARGE AFRICAN AMERICANS RIGHTS BUSINESS BORROWERS APPLICANT POLICIES |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. CV-96-6159
LONG BEACH MORTGAGE COMPANY,
Defendant.
______________________________
COMPLAINT FOR COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES,
CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The United States alleges that Defendant Long Beach Mortgage Company
has engaged in a pattern or practice of illegal discrimination by
basing the price of loans, at least in part, on an applicant's race,
national origin, sex and/or age.
Specifically, the United States alleges:
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This action is brought by the United States to enforce the
provisions of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 ("Fair
Housing Act"), as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of
1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619, and of the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act ("ECOA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691-1691f.
2. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1345, 42 U.S.C. § 3614, and 15 U.S.C. § 1691(h) and venue is
appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c), 1392(a) and 1395.
For purposes of venue, Defendant Long Beach Mortgage company
resides in Los Angeles County within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
1391(c), Local Rule 4.1 and General Order 349-A (January 30,
1995), because it operates eleven retail offices in Los Angeles
County. Moreover, a majority of the aggrieved persons in this case
reside in Los Angeles County.
II. THE DEFENDANT
3. Defendant Long Beach Mortgage Company is incorporated under the
laws of the State of Delaware. In subsequent paragraphs of this
complaint, Long Beach Mortgage Company will be referred to as
"Long Beach," "the lender" or "the defendant."
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
UNITED STATES AGREEMENT MORTGAGE FAIR HOUSING ACT EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY BORROWERS COURT BANK LENDING MORTGAGE LOAN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT STIPULATED ORDER BEACH MORTGAGE COMPANY VIOLATIONS COMPLAINT UNITED STATES DISTRICT CALIFORNIA RETAIL MORTGAGE LOAN FAIR LENDING LAWS COMPENSATION WHOLESALE BROKERS COMPLIANCE STATISTICAL MODEL MONITORING SYSTEM WRITTEN REPORTS DISCRIMINATION TRAINING COURSE CENTRAL DISTRICT CONSUMER EDUCATION |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
96-6159
LONG BEACH MORTGAGE COMPANY,
Defendant.
____________________________________
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER THEREON
The United States of America and Long Beach Mortgage Company have
agreed to enter into this Stipulated Order and Settlement Agreement
("Agreement") simultaneously with the filing by the United States of
its Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C.
§§ 3601-3619) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C.
1691-1691f) by Long Beach Bank FSB (the "Bank"), the predecessor in
interest to Long Beach Mortgage Company ("LBMC") , to resolve fully
and finally all claims asserted, or that could have been asserted,
arising out of or relating to the matters referred to in the
Complaint.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Bank operated in what the lending industry calls the "B/C" credit
market (in which market LBMC currently operates), where borrowers,
usually because of their impaired credit, paid prices higher than for
"A" residential mortgage loans to compensate for increased risk to the
lender ("B/C" residential mortgage loans are hereafter referred to as
"mortgage loans"). The Complaint alleges that during the period
January 1991 through June 1994, the Bank engaged in lending practices
that constituted unlawful discrimination on the basis of race,
national origin, gender and age. The United States maintains that
evidence, including a statistical analysis, shows (1) that the Bank
treated African American, Hispanic, female or older borrowers
differently from younger, white male borrowers by charging them higher
prices for mortgage loans and (2) that there is no non-discriminatory
explanation for this difference in treatment. The United States does
not claim that the Bank discriminated in charging borrowers a
risk-related premium, but rather in the additional discretionary
amounts that were charged by its loan officer employees and its
wholesale brokers.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
