Bruno v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

Bruno v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert J. Colville, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Sandra Bruno and Opt-In Plaintiffs (Joao Jacinto, Timothy Hollingsworth, Sharon Austin, Stanley Sobieski, William Hutchinson, and Alan DiGiovanni) (collectively, "Plaintiffs") seek collective certification of Home Mortgage Consultants ("HMCs") who work or have worked as HMCs for Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Defendant" or "Wells Fargo') nationwide since May 17, 2016, based on violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. ("FLSA"). The court has jurisdiction over the FLSA [*2]  claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Presently pending before the court is Plaintiffs' motions for conditional certification of the collective action under the FLSA.¹ (ECF No. 76). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted and the plaintiff will be authorized to disseminate the as yet to be agreed-upon proposed notice and opt-in consent forms.

I. Background

The allegations in the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 58) (hereinafter, "SAC") are as follows. Defendant is a national bank providing online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit, investment, retirement, wealth management, and insurance services throughout the United States. (SAC ¶ 13). At all relevant times, Wells Fargo Bank maintained control, oversight, and direction over Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees, including, but not limited to, hiring, firing, disciplining, timekeeping, payroll, and other employment practices. (SAC ¶ 14). Defendant is an enterprise with more than $500,000 in revenues and engaged in interstate commerce and is subject to the provisions of the FLSA. (SAC ¶ 17).

Plaintiffs and the similarly situated HMCs have the primary [*3]  duty of sales and sales support, including assisting Defendant's customers with their mortgage applications, advising customers about available loan products, programs, rates, policies, underwriting requirements and loan procedures, and selling Defendant's various mortgage-related products to Defendant's customers. (SAC ¶ 29).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.