Curry, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, which the Northern California Record reported on earlier, alleges breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and fraudulent concealment. The lawsuit also alleges violations of two laws in the Golden State and one in Illinois for subclasses of plaintiffs in each respective state.

The complaint alleges that Wells violated the California's Homeowners Bill of Rights because the bank had "an obligation to ensure that competent and reliable evidence, including the borrower's loan status and information, supported its right to foreclose."

The lawsuit further alleges that Wells violated the Golden State's law around unfair competition by denying eligible borrowers their right to government loan modifications.

Plaintiffs also claim the bank was out-of-step with Illinois prohibitions against fraud and deceptive acts because of language in the law around "false promises" and other verbiage that can be applied to offers of relief consumers were qualified for, but did not receive.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit see it as distinct from two others filed over faulty calculations the bank ran for hundreds of modifications between 2010 and 2015: Alicia Hernandez, et al. v. Wells Fargo and Ethan Ryder, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA. Wells agreed to multimillion-dollar payments in settling those two lawsuits.

"Plaintiffs do not reasonably believe that the modification errors committed by Wells Fargo in their loans or the loans of the putative class members in this action are the same errors," they said in a court filing.

But plaintiffs in another case that is open, Beloff v. Wells Fargo Bank, have filed an administrative motion successfully asking the court to vacate a previously planned hearing for the Curry lawsuit to determine whether the two cases' actions should be considered related.

Wells has faced multiple lawsuits and regulatory actions due to its errors, in which several hundreds of people who might otherwise have gotten modifications ended up in foreclosures, with one borrower describing it as a case where he lost his home due to "a computer glitch."

The bank had to pay billions of dollars in a 2022 consent order it entered into with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau due the modification issues and others involving auto loans and deposit accounts. In 2021, it paid a $250 million fine to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and faced servicing restrictions for violations of an earlier 2018 consent order.

The lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California stresses that the miscalculation Wells' proprietary software applied to loans being evaluated for the Home Affordable Modification Program persisted for years before Wells divulged it in a public company filing in 2018.

"Between 2010 and 2018, Defendant failed to detect, or ignored, multiple systematic errors in its automated decision-making software," plaintiffs said in their complaint. "This software determined customers' eligibility for a government-mandated mortgage modification during a time of extreme financial distress. Its importance to these customers' lives cannot be overstated."

The bank, which eventually replaced its in-house system with Black Knight's widely-used software, said it is "a different company today, with new leadership and revamped structure, processes, controls and culture in place.

"Wells Fargo is committed to providing customers with the products and services that can help meet their financial needs. Our ongoing outreach is a continuation of our efforts to work through legacy issues and make things right for customers."