Court filing
Brief — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 1.1)
Summary
A memorandum in support of Alliant CPA Group LLC's motion to transfer actions to the Northern District of Georgia under 28 U.S.C. §1407, filed May 22, 2020 as Document 1-1 before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL No. 2950. The movant asks the Panel to transfer twelve related actions to the Northern District of Georgia before the Honorable Leigh Martin May, or alternatively to the District of Arizona before the Honorable Diane J. Humetewa. The background states thirteen plaintiffs have sued eighty-three lender defendants in ten federal district courts, alleging the lenders withheld agent fees required to be paid out of lender origination fees. It recites the program's $349 billion and later $310 billion in funding and states the agency had approved over 1.6 million loans through almost 5,000 lenders as of May 19, 2020.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 25
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) MDL Docket No. ___________
Agent Fees Litigation
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
ALLIANT CPA GROUP LLC’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF ACTIONS TO THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1407 FOR A
COORDINATED AND/OR CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDING
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 25
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2
III. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5
A. THE RELATED ACTIONS SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSOLIDATION AND
TRANSFER UNDER SECTION § 1407. ........................................................................ 6
1. The Related Actions Present Common Questions of Fact. ..................................... 7
2. The Convenience of Parties and Witnesses is Facilitated by Transfer,
Consolidation, and/or Coordination. ....................................................................... 9
3. Transfer, Consolidation, and Coordination Will Promote the Just and Efficient
Conduct of These Related Actions. ...................................................................... 11
B. THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEIGH MARTIN
MAY IS THE APPROPRIATE TRANSFEREE FORUM FOR THIS CASE. ........................ 13
1. The Northern District of Georgia is Convenient, Economical, and Safe.............. 13
2. The Northern District of Georgia’s Banking and Financial Industry Gives it a
Sufficiently Strong Connection to This Litigation................................................ 15
3. The Northern District of Georgia has Extensive Experience With MDL Litigation,
has Ample Resources, and has a Low Current Case Load. .................................. 16
4. Judge May Is Well-Qualified to Efficiently and Effectively Handle This MDL. 18
C. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE DISTRICT COURT OF ARIZONA BEFORE JUDGE
HUMETEWA IS AN APPROPRIATE TRANSFEREE FORUM FOR THIS CASE. ............... 19
1. The District of Arizona is Convenient and Economical. ...................................... 19
2. Many of the Defendants Have Connections to the District of Arizona. ............... 20
3. Judge Humetewa Would Capably Shepherd This MDL to its Conclusion. ......... 20
IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 20
ii
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 3 of 25
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
In re Airline Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation, 655 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (J.P.M.L. 2009) .............. 17
In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), 771 F. Supp. 415 (J.P.M.L. 1991) ............. 7
In re Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litig., 37 F. Supp. 3d 1388 (J.P.M.L. 2014)............................. 7, 8
In re Baycol Prod. Liab. Litig., 180 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2001) ....................................... 20
In re Bristol Bay Alaska, Salmon Fishery Antitrust Litigation, 424 F. Supp. 504 (J.P.M.L. 1976)
.................................................................................................................................................. 13
In re Chrysler LLC 2.7 Liter V-6 Engine Oil Sludge Prods. Liab. Litig., 598 F. Supp. 2d 1372
(J.P.M.L. 2009) ........................................................................................................................ 12
In re Delta Dental Antitrust Litigation, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54441 (J.P.M.L. March 27, 2020)
.................................................................................................................................................. 12
In re Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litig., 716 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (J.P.M.L. 2010) 13
In re Equifax, Inc., 289 F. Supp. 3d 1322 (J.P.M.L. 2019) .......................................................... 17
In re Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation, 254 F.
Supp. 3d 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2017) .................................................................................................. 6
In re Fisher-Price Rockn Play Sleeper, 412 F. Supp. 3d 1357 (J.P.M.L. 2019) .......................... 12
In re Library Editions of Children’s Books, 297 F. Supp. 385 (J.P.M.L. 1968) .......................... 16
In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 493 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (J.P.M.L. 2007) .... 20
In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129695 (J.P.M.L. 2019) ............... 7
In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., 290 F. Supp. 3d 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2017) .............................. 7
In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 269 F. Supp. 2d 1372 (J.P.M.L. 2003)
.................................................................................................................................................. 16
In re North Sea Brent Crude Oil Futures Litig., 978 F. Supp. 2d 1384 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 21, 2013) 12
In re Payment Card Interchange Fee And Merchant, 398 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (J.P.M.L. 2005) ...... 7
In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2006) ............................. 6
In re Pilot Flying J Fuel Rebate Contract Litigation (No. II), 11 F. Supp. 3d 1351 (J.P.M.L.
2014) ........................................................................................................................................ 11
In re Plumbing Fixture Cases, 298 F. Supp. 484 (J.P.M.L. 1968) ................................................. 6
In Re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration 704 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2010) 20, 23
In re Tylenol Mktg., Sales Pracs. and Prods. Liab. Litig., 936 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2013)
.................................................................................................................................................. 14
In re Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Prods. Liab. Litig., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1402 (J.P.M.L. 2014) .............. 14
In re Zostavax Products Liability Litigation, 330 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2018) .................. 14
iii
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 4 of 25
Royster v. Food Lion (In re Food Lion), 73 F.3d 528 (4th Cir. 1996) ........................................... 6
Statutes
28 U.S.C. §1407 .................................................................................................................... 5, 6, 13
28 U.S.C. §1407(a) ..................................................................................................................... 6, 7
Treatises
Manual for Complex Litigation (4th) § 20.131 ............................................................................. 14
iv
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 5 of 25
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 and Rule 6.2(a) of the Rules of Procedure for the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, movant Alliant CPA Group LLC (the “Movant”), the plaintiff in
Alliant CPA Group LLC v. Bank of America Corp., et al., C.A., 1:20-cv-02026-LMM (N.D. Ga.)
(the “Alliant Action”), respectfully moves this honorable Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
for an Order transferring all twelve (12) currently-filed cases in the Schedule of Related Actions
filed concurrently herewith (collectively, the “Related Actions”), as well as any subsequent “tag
along” cases involving similar facts or claims, to the Northern District of Georgia and before the
Honorable Leigh Martin May for coordinated or consolidated proceedings. Alternatively, the
plaintiff requests transfer to the District of Arizona before the Honorable Diane J. Humetewa.
In March of 2020, the Federal Government created the Paycheck Protection Program
(“PPP”) under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). The
purpose of the PPP is to provide qualified small and mid-size business borrowers with loans to
weather the extreme economic hardships created by the COVID-19 crisis. In designing the PPP,
the Federal Government specifically incentivized and encouraged agents to engage in the PPP loan
process (“PPP Agents”) to effectively and efficiently connect small and medium-sized businesses
to the defendant lenders and banks (“PPP Lenders”), who were the gate-keepers for the first come,
first serve program. In fact, without the assistance of the PPP Agents, many mom-and-pop
business owners skilled at running their businesses, but not in navigating a complicated federal
loan program, would have been shut out of the PPP loan program.
As described below, Federal law mandates that PPP Agents be paid out of the PPP Lenders’
origination fees paid to them by the Federal Government, but in many cases, these lenders have
refused to pay. Presently, there are at least twelve (12) substantially similar federal actions pending
that were filed PPP Agents that helped businesses seek SBA loans from the defendant PPP Lenders
1
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 6 of 25
but who were not paid. In total, there are eighty-three (83) defendant Lenders identified in the
twelve (12) different actions filed by sixteen (16) different law firms. These cases are currently
pending in ten (10) different federal district courts, and they allege essentially the same wrongful
conduct on the part of the named defendants as PPP Lenders. Specifically, the PPP Agent plaintiffs
claim that the PPP Lender defendants have wrongly withheld and converted mandatory fees (the
“Agent Fees”) paid to them by the U.S. Government and owed to the plaintiffs as PPP Agents as
required for helping small businesses secure PPP loans. All Related Actions involve common
questions of law and fact that arise from the defendants’ failure to pay these statutorily-mandated
Agent Fees they are required to pay pursuant to the “PPP Information Sheet, Lenders” issued by
the Treasury1 and the SBA PPP Interim Final Rule2 (collectively, the “SBA Regulations”).
II. BACKGROUND
On March 27, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis,
the CARES Act was signed into federal law. See H.R. 748. As part of the CARES Act, the $349
billion PPP loan program was established. Id. In late April 2020, the Government added an
additional $310 billion in PPP funding, bringing the total PPP funds available to lend to $659
billion. See H.R. 266. The PPP was created as a Main Street loan program to provide American
small and medium-sized businesses with two and a half months of financial assistance, with some
or all of those loans being forgivable if utilized for the defined purposes.3
1
See U.S. Department of Treasury, “Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Information Sheet,
Lenders,” available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/PPP%20Lender%20
Information%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf (last accessed May 19, 2020).
2
13 CFR Part 120, available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
04/PPP%20Interim%20Final%20Rule_0.pdf (last accessed May 19, 2020).
3
See U.S. Department of Treasury, “Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Information Sheet,
Borrowers,” available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/PPP%20Borrower%20
Information%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf (last accessed May 19, 2020).
2
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 7 of 25
The SBA Regulations provide that PPP Lenders will be compensated for originating PPP
loans in the form of fees equaling: 5% of loans not exceeding $350k; 3% of loans over $350k and
under $2M; and 1% of loans $2M and above (the “Lender Fees”). See, supra, fn. 2. The
regulations not only include compensation for PPP Lenders, but also for PPP Agents. “An ‘Agent’
is defined as an authorized representative and can be: (1) an attorney; (2) an accountant; (3) a
consultant; (4) someone who prepares an applicant’s application for financial assistance and is
employed and compensated by the applicant; (5) someone who assists a lender with originating,
disbursing, servicing, liquidating, or litigating SBA loans; (6) a loan broker; or (7) any other
individual or entity representing an applicant by conducting business with the SBA.” See, supra,
fn. 1.
Under the SBA Regulations, all Agent Fees must be paid out of the Lender Fees paid to
the Lenders by the Federal Government. PPP Agents, such as the plaintiffs, are explicitly
prohibited from collecting any fees from applicants or from loan proceeds. Id. The SBA
Regulations provide that the PPP Agents will be compensated by the PPP Lender from the total
fees they receive from the Federal Government on the following schedule: 1% of loans not
exceeding $350k; .5% of loans over $350k but under $2M; and .25% of loans $2M and above (the
“Agent Fees”). Id. As of May 19, 2020, the SBA has approved over 1.6 million PPP loans for
small businesses through almost 5,000 lenders.4 The Lender Fees that the Lenders have been paid
by the Federal Government to date is approximately $20 billion, a substantial portion of which is
owed by the PPP Lenders to the plaintiffs as PPP Agents. All Related Actions allege that the
plaintiffs: served as the PPP Agent for small businesses; applied for PPP loans on behalf of those
4
See SBA “Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Report,” available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/
default/files/2020-04/PPP%20Deck%20copy.pdf (last accessed May 19, 2020).
3
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 8 of 25
businesses with defendants; the PPP loans for their clients were approved by the PPP Lenders; and
the PPP Agent did not receive Agent Fees from those Lenders.
Each of the Related Actions involve a single loan product (PPP) that was created under a
single congressional act (the CARES Act), administered by a single government agency (the SBA),
and that is governed by a single set of regulations (the SBA Regulations). Currently, there are
twelve (12) substantially similar federal actions in ten (10) different federal courts alleging similar
wrongful conduct on the part of the defendants prosecuted by a set of cooperating and coordinating
law firms. The Related Actions are pending in the following Districts: the Northern District of
Georgia, the District of Arizona, the Northern District of Alabama, the Central District of
California, the District of Colorado, the District of Utah, the Northern District of Florida, the
Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Ohio, and the Western District of
Pennsylvania. To date, a total of thirteen (13) plaintiffs5 have instituted legal action against eighty-
three (83) PPP Lender defendants,6 including several of the nation’s largest banks such as Bank of
5
The plaintiffs in the Schedule of Actions are: A.D. Sims LLC, Alliant CPA Group, LLC,
American Video Duplicating, Inc., Brunner Accounting Group, David S. Lowry, CPA,
HallockShannon, PC, ImpAcct, LLC, Kenneth M. Hahn, Leigh, King, Norton & Underwood,
LLC, Panda Group, PC, Panda Accounting, LLC, Sport & Wheat CPA, and Tush Law.
6
The PPP Lender defendants in the Schedule of Actions are: Academy Bank, N.A., Ameris
Bank, Bank of America Co., Bank of America, N.A., Bank of Oklahoma, N.A., Bank OZK, BOK
Financial Corp., BSD Capital, LLC dba Lendistry, Cadence Bancorporation, Cadence Bank, N.A.,
Celtic Bank Corporation, Celtic Investment, Inc., CenterState Bank Corporation, CenterState
Bank, N.A., Chase Bank USA, N.A., Citibank, NA, Citigroup Inc., Citizens & Northern Bank,
Citizens & Northern Corp, City National Bank, Colorado Enterprise Fund, CRB Group Inc., ,
Cross River Bank, Inc., F.N.B. Corp, Fifth Third Bancorp, Fifth Third Bank, First Financial
Bancorp, First Financial Bank, First National Bank of Pennsylvania, First National Community
Bank, FNCB Bancorp, Inc., Harvest Small Business Finance, Honat Bancorp, Honesdale National
Bank, Huntington Bancshares, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA,
Kabbage, Inc., KeyBank NA, KeyCorp, Live Oak Bancshares Inc., Live Oak Banking Company,
Midfirst Bank, Midwest Regional Bancorp, Inc., Midwest Regional Bank, Modern Bank
Management, LLC, Modern Bank, NA, Mountain America Federal Credit Union d/b/a Mountain
America Credit Union, MUFG Bank Ltd., MUFG Union Bank, NA, Newtek Small Business
Services, Inc., Newton Federal Bank, North Side Bank & Trust Company, PayPal Holdings, Inc.,
4
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 9 of 25
America, Wells Fargo, Truist Bank (the combination of the former BB&T and SunTrust banks),
JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and U.S. Bank. Some of the defendants are named in up to six of the
Related Actions, while others are named in only one. The defendants are numerous and
geographically diverse, located from California to New York, and doing business in every U.S.
state and the District of Columbia.
While these cases are geographically disbursed throughout various federal courts, each of
the Related Actions asserts similar claims for declaratory judgment, conversion, unjust
enrichment, quantum meruit, tortious interference and related common law causes of action. The
Related Actions also seek similar relief, e.g., payment of the Agent Fees, as well as damages
including interest, attorneys’ fees, and expenses. The commonality of factual and legal issues,
coupled with the need for coordinated adjudication, make the Related Actions particularly suited
to being transferred and consolidated in an MDL. The PPP continues to be administered, so the
federal judiciary should respond with a cohesive and efficient methodology for resolution, rather
than risking inconsistent pre-trial rulings and duplication of efforts in different federal courts.
III. ARGUMENT
Transfer, consolidation, and coordination of the Related Actions by the Panel for pre-trial
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407 to the Northern District of Georgia before the Honorable Leigh
Martin May, or in the alternative, to the District of Arizona before the Honorable Diane C.
Peoples Financial Services Corp., Peoples Security Bank & Trust Co., PNC Bank, NA, Regions
Financial Corporation, Regions Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, ServiceFirst Bank, Inc., Synovus
Trust Company, NA, Silicon Valley Bank, Small Business Loan Source, Inc., SVB Financial
Group, Synovus Bank, The Huntington National Bank, The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc,
Truist Bank dba Branch Banking & Trust Co, Truist Financial Corp., U.S. Bancorp, U.S. Bank,
NA, United Community Bank, United Community Bank, Inc., University First Federal Credit
Union d/b/a University Federal Credit Union, Vectra Bank Colorado, Wells Fargo & Co., Wells
Fargo, NA, Wintrust Bank, NA, Wintrust Financial Corporation, Zions Bancorporation, N.A.
5
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 10 of 25
Humetewa, is appropriate. “The multidistrict litigation statute, 28 U.S.C. §1407, was enacted as a
means of conserving judicial resources in situations where multiple cases involving common
questions of fact were filed in different districts.” Royster v. Food Lion (In re Food Lion), 73 F.3d
528, 531-32 (4th Cir. 1996). An MDL’s purpose is to “eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary.” In re Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Hernia Mesh Prods. Liab. Litig., 254 F.
Supp. 3d 1381, at 1382 (J.P.M.L. 2017). The statute was also “meant to ‘assure uniform and
expeditious treatment in the pretrial procedures in multidistrict litigation.’” In re
Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1230 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting H.R. Rep.
No. 1130, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1968)). “Without it, ‘conflicting pretrial discovery demands for
documents and witnesses’ might ‘disrupt the functions of the Federal courts.’” Id. Consolidation
is especially important where “the potential for conflicting, disorderly, [and] chaotic” action is
greatest. See also In re Plumbing Fixture Cases, 298 F. Supp. 484, 493 (J.P.M.L. 1968).
A. THE RELATED ACTIONS SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSOLIDATION AND
TRANSFER UNDER SECTION § 1407.
At the outset, the fact that there are eighty-three (83) defendants named in the Related
Actions makes this exactly the type of litigation that should be centralized, consolidated, and
coordinated. The Panel has held that combining actions with a large volume of defendants into a
single proceeding satisfies the objectives of 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate
Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129695 (J.P.M.L. 2019) (consolidating roughly 30 distributor and
manufacturer defendants of opioids, based on common questions of fact pertaining to marketing
and distribution of opioids) (citing In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., 290 F. Supp. 3d 1375,
1378-79 (J.P.M.L. 2017)); In re Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litig., 37 F. Supp. 3d 1388, 1389
(J.P.M.L. 2014) (consolidating 5 cases from 5 districts that named over 80 defendants
6
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 11 of 25
collectively); see also In re Payment Card Interchange Fee And Merchant, 398 F. Supp. 2d 1356
(J.P.M.L. 2005) (consolidating roughly 40 defendants, based on all actions sharing factual
questions related to no-surcharge rule and interchange fee); In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No.
VI), 771 F. Supp. 415, 416-17 and 424 (J.P.M.L. 1991) (transferring and consolidating 480
defendants). In such cases, the Panel has found “voluntary coordination impractical.” In re Auto
Body Shop Antitrust Litig., 37 F. Supp. 3d at 1390.
Transfer and centralization of the Related Actions for consolidated or coordinated pre-trial
proceedings in the Northern District of Georgia (or the alternatively proposed venue, the District
of Arizona), would satisfy the requirements and goals of 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). Under 28 U.S.C.
§1407(a), the Panel may transfer and consolidate, or coordinate cases where: (1) the civil actions
involve “one or more common questions of fact,” (2) transfer will serve “the convenience of the
parties and witnesses,” and (3) transfer “will promote the just and efficient conduct” of the civil
actions. Each of these factors are met here.
1. The Related Actions Present Common Questions of Fact.
Despite the volume of defendants in the Related Actions, all of the cases involve a single
loan product that was created under the CARES Act, that is administered by the SBA, related to
the same Agent Fees entitlement, and is governed by a single set of SBA Regulations. These
Related Actions assert overlapping claims against PPP Lenders for failing to pay Agent Fees, based
on common factual allegations and legal questions regarding the CARES Act and the SBA
Regulations. Each of the Related Actions is based on the allegation that the PPP Lender defendants
failed to remit the Agent Fees owed to plaintiffs despite the SBA Regulations that require payment.
There are currently eighty-three (83) separate PPP Lender defendants and thirteen (13) PPP Agent
plaintiffs named in the various Related Actions, with the potential for those numbers to increase
into the thousands. See, supra, Section II. Each of the Related Actions is styled as a class action
7
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 12 of 25
and purports to bring claims on behalf of other PPP Agents similarly situated.
The core facts at issue here are the same, including the same CARES Act, the same SBA
Regulations that apply to all of the PPP Lender defendants, and the same rules mandating the
payment of PPP Agent Fees by those defendants out of the Lender Fees they received from the
Federal Government. All of the Related Actions allege that the plaintiffs served as the PPP Agent
for small and midsize main street businesses who brought these PPP borrowers to each PPP Lender
who then applied for PPP loans on behalf of those businesses. Each Action alleges that the
defendants served as the PPP Lenders, i.e., the intermediary between small businesses and federal
funds. Each also alleges that the defendants received approval from the SBA and funded loans for
the plaintiffs’ small business clients, that each received their Lender Fee from the Federal
Government pursuant to the SBA Regulations, but that the defendants failed to pay the statutorily-
mandated Agent Fee to the plaintiffs mandated by those same regulations. The Related Actions
contend that plaintiffs believed that they would receive the Agent Fees from the defendants for
loans that were approved, as required by the SBA Regulations. All of the Related Actions allege
that defendants have either failed to pay at all or failed to pay the full fee owed to plaintiffs,
damaging plaintiffs and the PPP Agents nationwide.
Transfer, coordination, and/or consolidation are appropriate because many common
questions exist among the Related Actions, including, but not limited to:
• Whether defendants complied with all applicable SBA Regulations in processing
applications for PPP funds and in distributing PPP funds, including the PPP Agent
Fees;
• Whether defendants complied with their legal obligations under the terms of the
CARES Act as a lender of the PPP funds and a custodian for the PPP Agent Fees part
of the PPP Lender Fees they received;
• Whether defendants were required to pay the PPP Agent Fees to the plaintiffs and PPP
Agents under the CARES Act and SBA Regulations;
8
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 13 of 25
• Whether defendants failed to compensate the PPP Agents who facilitated PPP loans
by failing and refusing to pay over that portion of the Lender Fees they received
earmarked for the PPP Agents;
• Whether defendants have a policy and/or practice of failing to compensate PPP Agents
who facilitated PPP loans to the detriment of the PPP Agents;
• Whether defendants prioritized their own origination fees over abiding by the CARES
Act, SBA Regulations, and PPP specifications;
• Whether the defendants converted plaintiffs’ and Agents’ PPP Agent fees;
• Whether the defendants were unjustly enriched by failing to pay the plaintiffs the PPA
Agent Fees required by law; and
• Whether defendants are likely to continue to violate SBA Regulations regarding
paying Agents their earned fees under the CARES Act.
In the end, each of the Related Actions involve the same core nucleus of facts and the same
legal questions, and they should be transferred and consolidated for this reason. The requirement
that the Related Actions present one or more common questions of fact is easily met in this matter.
2. The Convenience of Parties and Witnesses is Facilitated by Transfer,
Consolidation, and/or Coordination.
Transfer and consolidation or coordination of the Related Actions will indisputably serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses in this matter. With thirteen (13) plaintiffs bringing
twelve (12) cases in ten (10) different districts that implicate eighty-three (83) defendants, the size
of this litigation easily justifies transfer and consolidation. Moreover, there is a substantial overlap
of defendants among the Related Actions—a feature of the litigations that will only become more
pronounced as additional cases are filed. For instance, Bank of America is a defendant in six of
the Related Actions.7 Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase are each defendants in four of the Related
7
See Alliant Action; A.D. SIMS, LLC v. Wintrust Financial Corp., 1:20-cv-01344 (N.D.
Ill.); IMPACCT, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 1:20-cv-01344 (D. Colo.); Panda Group, PC
d/b/a Panda Accounting v. Bank of America Corp., 4:20-cv-00045 (D. UT.); and American Video
Duplicating, Inc., et al., v. Citigroup, Inc., 2:20-cv-03815 (C.D. Cal.); Brunner Accounting Group
v. SVB Financial Group, et al., 2:20-cv-04235 (C.D. Cal.).
9
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 14 of 25
Actions.8 U.S. Bank, City National Bank, BlueVine, Royal Bank of Canada, and Synovus are
defendants in two of the Related Actions.9 This overlap will only amplify as more cases are filed.
Without transfer and consolidation of these Related Actions, the Parties will likely be
subject to duplicative discovery requests, inconsistent court orders relating to pre-trial proceedings,
judicial inefficiencies, and unnecessary expense. Further, different federal courts, in duplicating
rulings on the same issues, could make contradictory findings on significant pre-trial disputes.
Litigation of this scope should not be plagued with such inconsistencies and inefficiencies.
Additionally, individual witnesses, such as defendants’ employees and executives, could be
subject to multiple depositions, interviews, and other pre-trial proceedings. Transfer and
consolidation or coordination of these actions will address these concerns by limiting duplicative
discovery and facilitating consistency before a single transferee court. See, In re Pilot Flying J
Fuel Rebate Contract Litig. (No. II), 11 F. Supp. 3d 1351, 1352 (J.P.M.L. 2014) (“Centralization
will avoid repetitive depositions of [the defendant’s] officers and employees and duplicative
document discovery regarding the alleged scheme.”).
In addition overlapping defendants, there is also an overlap among the putative classes. All
8
See Alliant Action; IMPACCT, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 1:20-cv-01344 (D. Colo.);
and American Video Duplicating, Inc., et al., v. Citigroup, Inc., 2:20-cv-03815 (C.D. Cal.);
Brunner Accounting Group v. SVB Financial Group, et al., 2:20-cv-04235 (C.D. Cal.); David S.
Lowry, CPA, Ltd., v. U.S. Bancorp., et al., 1:20-cv-00348-MWM (N.D. Ohio); Brunner
Accounting Group v. SVB Financial Group, et al., 2:20-cv-04235 (C.D. Cal.); and Panda
Accounting LLC v. Academy Bank, N.A., et al., 2:20-cv-00985 (D. Ariz.).
9
See Alliant Action; IMPACCT, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase, 1:20-cv-01344 (D. Colo.); Amer.
Video Dupl., Inc. v. Citigroup, Inc., 2:20-cv-03815 (C.D. Cal.), and David S. Lowry, CPA, Ltd., v.
U.S. Bancorp., et al., 1:20-cv-00348-MWM (N.D. Ohio); A.D. SIMS, LLC v. Wintrust Financial
Corp., 1:20-cv-01344 (N.D. Ill.); Brunner Accounting Group v. SVB Financial Group, et al., 2:20-
cv-04235 (C.D. Cal.); Amer. Video Dupl., Inc. v. Royal Bank of Canada, et. al., 2:20-cv-04036
(C.D. Cal.); Sport & Wheat CPA PA v. ServisFirst Bank, et al., 3:20-cv-05425 (N.D. Fla.).
10
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 15 of 25
but one of the Related Actions seek certification of a nationwide class.10 In re Fisher-Price Rockn
Play Sleeper, 412 F. Supp. 3d 1357, 1360 (J.P.M.L. 2019) (centralization will provide superior
coordination than could be achieved informally among counsel, in part based on overlapping
nationwide classes). Even if that were not true, the Panel has deemed it appropriate to consolidate
and coordinate non-overlapping classes as well. See, e.g., In re Chrysler LLC 2.7 Liter V-6 Engine
Oil Sludge Prods. Liab. Litig., 598 F. Supp. 2d 1372 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (centralizing five non-
overlapping putative statewide class actions); In re North Sea Brent Crude Oil Futures Litig., 978
F. Supp. 2d 1384, 1385, 2013 WL 5701579, at *1 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 21, 2013).
With regard to the convenience of parties and witnesses, this Panel has recognized that
having a presence in or near a district is a factor favoring transfer. See In re Delta Dental Antitrust
Litig., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54441 (J.P.M.L. March 27, 2020) (finding transferee court
appropriate where “[s]everal important defendants are located in or near the [district].”). As
explained in detail below (see, infra, Section III(B)(2)), Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Synovus,
Ameris Bank, Cadence Bank, United Community Bank, and Truist Bank all have corporate offices
either in or near Georgia, and Atlanta is geographically central to many of the Lenders that are not
otherwise connected to Georgia, making the Northern District of Georgia the most convenient
location for this litigation.
3. Transfer, Consolidation, and Coordination Will Promote the Just and
Efficient Conduct of These Related Actions.
Granting this motion will also serve the just and efficient conduct of the Related Actions,
giving structure and a single judicial voice to what otherwise could become a chaotic litigation
with eighty-three (83) defendants (and counting) in ten (10) different judicial venues. Unless these
10
See Sport & Wheat CPA PA v. ServisFirst Bank, Inc., 3:20-cv-05425 (N.D. Fla.).
11
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 16 of 25
cases are transferred and consolidated, there is substantial risk that litigation of the Related Actions
will result in a sprawling litigation that is unjust, inefficient, and unmanageable. The Panel
recognizes multiple factors when determining whether the just and efficient conduct of a litigation
will be advanced by transfer, including: (i) avoidance of conflicting rulings in various cases; (ii)
prevention of duplication of discovery on common issues; (iii) avoidance of conflicting and
duplicative pre-trial conferences; (iv) advancing judicial economy; and (v) reducing the burden on
the parties by allowing division of workload among several attorneys. See, e.g., In re Endangered
Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litig., 716 F. Supp. 2d 1369, 1369 (J.P.M.L. 2010); and In re
Bristol Bay Alaska, Salmon Fishery Antitrust Litig., 424 F. Supp. 504, 506 (J.P.M.L. 1976). All
of these factors will be advanced by transfer and consolidation of the Related Actions.
Further, the Related Actions are all in the early stages and in a similar procedural posture.
While some of the Defendants have been served with process, as of the date of this filing, only two
of the defendants—CitiBank and Synovus—have answered or otherwise responded,11 and several
of the larger banks have asked for and obtained generous extensions of time to respond having
been informed that this MDL application would be filed. Given the early stage of all the Related
Actions, transfer and consolidation will enable the Action to realize significant benefits from
centralized pre-trial proceedings. In re Zostavax Prods. Liab. Litig., 330 F. Supp. 3d 1378, 1380
(J.P.M.L. 2018). By transferring and consolidating the Related Actions before a single MDL
judge, pre-trial discovery and motions can be structured and coordinated for all the parties, which
will reduce witness inconvenience, the cumulative burden on the courts, and the litigation’s overall
expense, as well as minimize the potential for conflicting rulings on issues related to the PPP loan
11
Citibank is a named defendant in American Video Duplicating, Inc., et al., v. Citigroup, Inc.,
2:20-cv-03815 (C.D. Cal.). Synovus is named in Sport & Wheat CPA PA v. ServisFirst Bank, Inc.,
3:20-cv-05425 (N.D. Fla.).
12
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 17 of 25
program, the CARES Act, and the SBA Regulations. In re Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Prods. Liab.
Litig., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1402, 1405 (J.P.M.L. 2014) (“Centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel and the judiciary.”); and In re Tylenol Mktg., Sales Practices and Prods. Liab. Litig., 936
F. Supp. 2d 1379, 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (centralization “prevent[s] inconsistent pretrial rulings (on
Daubert issues and other matters)”).
In litigating different cases involving the same factual and legal allegations, the parties face
the prospect of district courts entering inconsistent rulings regarding discovery, class certification
and the ultimate resolution of the disputes in these cases. Multiple inefficiencies would occur as
parties engage in duplicative discovery and motion practice involving the same central questions
regarding the PPP loan program, the CARES Act, and the SBA Regulations. Thus, the
circumstances of these Related Actions dictate that transfer and consolidation is not only
preferable, it is necessary for the just and efficient litigation of the parties’ disputes.
B. THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEIGH MARTIN
MAY IS THE APPROPRIATE TRANSFEREE FORUM FOR THIS CASE.
The objectives of 28 U.S.C. § 1407 would be best served by sending the MDL to the
Northern District of Georgia before Judge May who currently presides over the Alliant Action.
There is no central focal point for the litigations, so the ease of access, economical travel options,
Atlanta’s banking and financial services industry and its geographically central location make the
Northern District of Georgia the appropriate transferee forum for this MDL. The underlying
considerations supporting coordination of all the Related Actions into one district for pre-trial
proceedings would be satisfied with a transfer to the Northern District of Georgia.
1. The Northern District of Georgia is Convenient, Economical, and Safe.
The goals of convenience and economy would be served by transferring the Related
13
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 18 of 25
Actions to the Northern District of Georgia. Economy is an important factor, together with the
experience, skill, and caseload of the judge to whom the MDL is assigned. Manual for Complex
Litigation (4th) § 20.131 (“The Panel uses no single factor to select the transferee district, but the
Panel does consider where . . . the cost and inconvenience will be minimized, and the experience,
skill, and caseloads of available judges.” (footnote omitted)). When the wrongdoing alleged is
national, which it is here, there is “no single district [that] stands out as the geographic focal point.”
In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 269 F. Supp. 2d 1372, 1373 (J.P.M.L.
2003). The goal, therefore, should be to select a transferee court that is both economical and has
the needed resources “to steer this litigation on a prudent course.” Id. The choice urged by Movant
would fulfill that goal.
The Northern District of Georgia is a geographically central district for this litigation,
providing a convenient forum for counsel and their clients to participate fully in the litigation
without incurring undue expense. This Panel has emphasized the fact that “although air travel
renders both [coasts of the United States, California and New York] readily accessible, there is
still something to be said for the convenience of a geographically central forum.” In re Library
Editions of Children’s Books, 297 F. Supp. 385, 387 (J.P.M.L. 1968). The wrongdoing alleged is
national, which means that “no single district stands out as the geographic focal point.” In re New
Motor Vehicles Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 269 F. Supp. 2d at 1373. The goal, therefore,
should be to select a transferee court with the needed resources and a transferee judge with the
time and requisite experience “to steer this litigation on a prudent course.” Id. The choice urged
by Movant would fulfill that goal.
The Northern District of Georgia is also readily accessible to parties and counsel. Atlanta
is home to Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport, which serves 100 million
14
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 19 of 25
passengers/year and offers several direct incoming and outgoing flights to every major city in the
U.S. daily. It is located minutes away from the Northern District of Georgia federal courthouse,
making the courthouse convenient and easy to access because it is located close to Atlanta’s
MARTA mass transit system and hotels. This Panel has also repeatedly recognized that the
Northern District of Georgia is an appropriate transferee forum and is convenient to parties and
witnesses. In re Equifax, Inc., 289 F. Supp. 3d 1322, 1324 (J.P.M.L. 2019); In re Airline Baggage
Fee Antitrust Litigation, 655 F. Supp. 2d 1362, 1362 (J.P.M.L. 2009).
The Northern District of Georgia is also safer from a health perspective than many of the
alternative venues. COVID-19 has ravaged the Northeast and the West Coast, while Georgia was
the first state to begin re-opening procedures, and it has recently seen its Coronavirus related
hospitalizations dip below 1,000 for the first time since that statistic has been measured.
2. The Northern District of Georgia’s Banking and Financial Industry Gives it a
Sufficiently Strong Connection to This Litigation.
The Northern District of Georgia has a strong connection to the banking and financial
services industry and is geographically central to the larger defendants. In the United States,
JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citigoup (the “Big Four”) hold roughly 50%
of all U.S. banking assets.12 JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup are headquartered in New York, New
York, which is just 850 miles and a short flight from Atlanta.13 Bank of America is headquartered
12
Federal Reserve, “Large Commercial Banks,” available at https://www.federalreserve
.gov/releases/lbr/current/default.htm (last accessed May 20, 2020); Business Insider, “Here is a list
of the largest banks in the United States by assets in 2020,” available at
https://www.businessinsider.com/largest-banks-us-list (last accessed May 20, 2020).
13
See https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/investor-relations/document/annualreport
-2019.pdf (last accessed May 20, 2020); https://www.citigroup.com/citi/about/countries-and-
jurisdictions/united-states-usa.html (last accessed May 20, 2020).
15
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 20 of 25
250 miles from Atlanta in Charlotte, North Carolina.14 Truist Bank is the sixth largest bank in
nation, and it is also headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.15 JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo,
Bank of America, and Truist Bank all have corporate offices and branch locations within the
Northern District of Georgia. Wells Fargo is headquartered in San Francisco, California which
also has direct flights into Atlanta.16
Although there is no current reporting on exactly which Lenders processed the greatest
number of PPP loans or the largest approved sums, it is clear that each of these banks had
significant volumes and sums of PPP loans.17 Additionally, while Regions Bank (the No. 22
Largest Commercial Bank) is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, Regions has a corporate
office in Atlanta as well. Georgia is also the corporate headquarters of Synovus Bank (No. 39),
Ameris Bank (No. 78), Cadence Bank (No. 82), and United Community Bank (No. 107), each of
which is a named defendant.18 Ultimately, there are several defendants that are headquartered in
the Northern District of Georgia, and this venue is centrally located to some of the largest banks
in the U.S., which makes it an ideal venue for a litigation of this type.
3. The Northern District of Georgia has Extensive Experience With MDL
Litigation, has Ample Resources, and has a Low Current Case Load.
The staff and Clerk’s office of the Northern District of Georgia are well-equipped and
experienced to provide the necessary support services for managing this litigation. It is also a
14
http://investor.bankofamerica.com/contact-us/contact-ir (last accessed May 20, 2020).
15
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/article238596963.html (last access May 20, 2020).
16
https://www.wellsfargo.com/about/corporate/governance/contact/ (last accessed May 20, 2020).
17
Business Insider, “PPP SMALL BUSINESS LOANS: How $659 billion in coronavirus-linked
loans are being spread across lenders, states, and industries,” available at
https://www.businessinsider.com/ppp-small-business-loan-report (last accessed May 20, 2020).
18
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/lbr/current/default.htm (last accessed May 20, 2020).
16
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 21 of 25
currently underutilized district in an otherwise busy federal court system, which further favors
transfer to this District. The Northern District of Georgia only has four (4) MDLs currently
pending, and two are assigned to Chief Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. 19 No MDLs are assigned to
Judge May. On the other hand, other venues featuring claims against defendants, like the Northern
District of Illinois, feature heavy MDL caseloads. Id.
The Northern District of Georgia also compares favorably to all other districts of the
country in the speed by which it disposes of civil cases, particularly in the time from filing to
trial.20 Additionally, the Northern District of Georgia has ample capacity to host this litigation;
the district has had 26 MDLs assigned to it in the past, which serves as proof that consolidation of
related cases in the district has repeatedly served the objectives of economy, efficiency, and
convenience.21 The Northern District of Georgia has a state-of-the-art courthouse in Atlanta,
Georgia, where Judge May presides, which further reinforces its suitability for this litigation. For
these reasons, the district “possesses the necessary resources, facilities, and technology to sure-
handedly devote the substantial time and effort to pretrial matters that this complex docket is likely
to require.” In re Baycol Prod. Liab. Litig., 180 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2001).
19
See MDL Statistics Report - Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District, as of April 15,
2020, available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_
By_District-April-15-2020.pdf.
20
This District has among the shortest times for time from filing to disposition at trial. See “United
States District Courts – Median Time Intervals From Filing to Disposition of Civil Cases
Terminated – March 31, 2019,” available at https://www.uscourts.gov/file/26391/download (last
accessed May 19, 2020) (showing N.D. Ga. at 23.4 months; D. Ariz. at 29.5; N.D. Ala. at 35.6
months; N.D. Ill. at 33.6 months; D. Colo. at 29.0 months; N.D. Fla. at 32.4 months; E.D. Pa. at
20.5 months; S.D. Ohio at 24.0 months; C.D. Cal. at 22.3 months; D. Ut. at 45.4 months for 2018
-- 2019 statistics unavailable).
21
See https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/JPML_Cumulative_Terminated_Litigations
-FY-2019.pdf (last accessed May 14, 2020).
17
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 22 of 25
4. Judge May Is Well-Qualified to Efficiently and Effectively Handle This MDL.
Judge May was nominated to the federal bench in 2013. Prior to being confirmed, she
had been a partner at the Atlanta office of the law firm of Butler, Wooten & Fryhofer LLP since
2000, where her practice focused on complex civil litigation in both state and federal courts.
Additionally, Judge May has experience managing large and complex civil litigation, and she has
earned a reputation in the District as a smart, prepared, and organized judge. Selecting the
Northern District of Georgia and Judge May would centralize the cases before “a transferee judge
with the time and experience to steer this litigation on a prudent course and sitting in a district
with the capacity to handle this litigation.” In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig.,
493 F. Supp. 2d 1365, 1367 (J.P.M.L. 2007).
Although Judge May has not yet presided over an MDL, she possesses the qualifications
and skill to preside over one. Judge Selna also had no prior MDL experience before the Panel
transferred the Toyota Unintended Acceleration cases to him. See In Re Toyota Motor Corp.
Unintended Acceleration, 704 F. Supp. 2d 1379, 1382 (J.P.M.L. 2010) (transferring to Judge
Selna, who had only been on the bench for seven years at the time).22 The fact that Judge Selna
had not previously presided over an MDL did not dissuade the Panel. The Panel noted that Judge
Selna was “a well regarded and skilled jurist,” who had almost “28 years of private law practice
at the very highest levels and in some of the most complex cases,” which made him “well prepared
for a case of this magnitude.” Id. With her experience and skill, Judge May is also prepared for
a case of this magnitude and would efficiently and effectively manage this litigation.
22
https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/JVS/AD/Resume.pdf.
18
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 23 of 25
C. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE DISTRICT COURT OF ARIZONA BEFORE JUDGE
HUMETEWA IS AN APPROPRIATE TRANSFEREE FORUM FOR THIS CASE.
In the alternative, Movant respectfully requests that the Related Actions be transferred to
the District of Arizona before the Honorable Diane J. Humetewa, who presides over the Related
Action Panda Accounting, LLC v. Academy Bank, N.A., et al., C.A. 2:20-cv-00985-DJH (D. Ariz.).
1. The District of Arizona is Convenient and Economical.
The District of Arizona offers a convenient and economical alternative to the Northern
District of Georgia. The District of Arizona is readily accessible to all parties, witnesses and
counsel. Phoenix hosts the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport which is among the largest
commercial airports in the United States, allowing for parties, witnesses and counsel to easily
travel to the jurisdiction with minimal expense. In addition, the District of Arizona’s courthouse
is located near Phoenix’s mass transit system, the Valley Metro light rail, and numerous hotels,
making the courthouse convenient and easy to access. The District of Arizona is also centrally
located among the majority of the other Districts of the Related Actions. The majority of the
Related Actions are located in Districts located in either the Midwest (Northern District of Illinois
and the Northern District of Ohio) or the West Coast23 (District of Arizona, Central District of
California, the District of Colorado, and the District of Utah). Further, the District of Arizona is
known for its efficient civil docket from filing to trial (see, supra, fn. 20), and its stellar capabilities
have made it the site of 17 MDLs to date (see, supra, fn. 21).
23
Panda Accounting LLC v. Academy Bank NA, et al., 2:20-cv-00985 (D. Ariz.); American
Video Duplicating, Inc., et al., v. Citigroup, Inc., 2:20-cv-03815 (C.D. Cal.); Brunner Accounting
Group v. SVB Financial Group, et al., 2:20-cv-04235 (C.D. Cal.); American Video Duplicating,
Inc., et al., v. Royal Bank of Canada, et al., 2:20-cv-04036 (C.D. Cal.); IMPACCT, LLC v.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., 1:20-cv-01344 (D. Colo.) and Panda Group, PC d/b/a Panda Accounting
v. Bank of America Corp., 4:20-cv-00045 (D. UT.).
19
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 24 of 25
2. Many of the Defendants Have Connections to the District of Arizona.
Thirty-four (34) defendants,24 including the four largest banks in the US, have branch
locations in Phoenix and conduct business in the District of Arizona, making it a strong alternative
venue for this litigation.
3. Judge Humetewa Would Capably Shepherd This MDL to its Conclusion.
A federal judge since 2014 and a U.S. Attorney, trial litigator, and professor prior to that,
the Hon. Diane J. Humetewa has the experience and background to efficiently and effectively
handle this MDL. Judge Humetewa has not presided over an MDL to date, a factor the Panel has
not dissuaded the Panel when determining candidates to oversee MDL proceedings. See In Re
Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration, 704 F. Supp. 2d at 1382.
IV. CONCLUSION
All Related Actions in this matter, and any later “tag-alongs,” should be centralized
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The Northern District of Georgia should be the site of the MDL,
and the matter should be assigned to the Hon. Leigh Martin May. In the alternative, the Related
Actions should go to the District of Arizona, before the Hon. Diane J. Humetewa.
24
Bank of America Co., Bank of America N.A., Bank of Oklahoma, Bank OZK, BOK
Financial Corp., Chase Bank U.S.A N.A., Citibank N.A., Citigroup Inc., F.N.B Corp., First
Financial Bancorp, Harvest Small Business Finance, Honat Bancorp Inc., Huntington Bancshares,
Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Kabbage, Inc., Midwest Regional
Bancorp, Inc., Midwest Regional Bank, Mountain America Federal Credit Union d/b/a Mountain
America Credit Union, MUFG Bank Ltd., MUFG Union Bank N.A., Newtek Small Business
Services, Inc., Regions Financial Corporation, Regions Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, The PNC
Financial Services Group, Inc., U.S. Bancorp, U.S. Bank, NA, Vectra Bank Colorado, Wells Fargo
& Co., Wells Fargo, NA, Wintrust Bank, NA, Wintrust Financial Corporation, Zions
Bancorporation, N.A.
20
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 1-1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 25 of 25
Dated: May 22, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ James F. McDonough, III
GERAGOS & GERAGOS, PC HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
Mark Geragos, Esq. James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
Ben Meiselas, Esq. Travis Lynch, Esq.
644 South Figueroa Street 3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
Los Angeles, California 90017 Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (213) 625-3900 Telephone: 404-996-0869
Facsimile: (213) 232-3255 Facsimile: 205-326-3332
Email: mark@geragos.com jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com
Email: ben@geragos.com tlynch@hgdlawfirm.com
ZUMPANO PATRICIOS & POPOK, ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
PLLC Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael S. Popok, Esq. Michael Laird, Esq.
Mitchell G. Mandell, Esq. 1100 IDS Center
417 Fifth Avenue, Suite 826 80 South Eighth Street
New York, NY 10016 Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (212) 381-9999 Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Facsimile: (212) 320-0332 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
Email: mpopok@zplaw.com Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
Email: mmandell@zplaw.com Email: michael.laird@zimmreed.com
Attorneys for Movant Alliant CPA Group, LLC (Alliant CPA Group, LLC v. Bank of America,
Corp. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02026, N.D. GA. May 11, 2020).
21
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.jpml.1161172.1.1.pdf
- Size
- 382,921 bytes
- SHA-256
- 03b60ade73c34ce0e7c772738490ac213ff9e9b6969f91ee44da8a5d53d7d5a4
- Original
- No public link identified.