This decision holds that the Fair Housing Act (42 USC 3613) sets a broad, loose standard of proximate causation and that Oakland’s claim of decreased property tax revenue due to Wells Fargo’s housing discrimination against Black and Hispanic borrowers both in terms of giving them less satisfactory loan terms and in foreclosing on them disproportionately–all as demonstated by multiple regression analysis–satisfies that loose proximate cause standard, at least at the pleading stage.  However, the decision also holds that the Fair Housing Act requires a proximate cause showing for each item of relief sought, including injunctive and declaratory relief.  Oakland’s claims for that relief and for excess municipal expenditures on fire prevention, police and the like were not adequately shown to have been proximately caused by Wells Fargo’s alleged discriminatory conduct.