Court filing
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION -- (re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2950) ) Filed by Defendants… — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 169)
Summary
A response in opposition filed June 17, 2020 by defendants Citibank, N.A. and Citigroup Inc. before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in In re: Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Agent Fees Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2950, Document 169. It opposes Alliant CPA Group LLC's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to transfer the agent fee cases to the Northern District of Georgia, and joins and incorporates the response filed by Synovus Bank and others. The Citi defendants state that they are named in only two of the related actions and that Citigroup has made no PPP loans. In the alternative, the response asks that any industry-wide MDL be centralized before Judge Michael L. Brown in the Northern District of Georgia or before Judge Edmond E. Chang in the Northern District of Illinois. It is signed by counsel at Mayer Brown LLP.
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 169 Filed 06/17/20 Page 1 of 4
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) MDL Docket No. 2950
Agent Fees Litigation
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407 AND JOINDER IN RESPONSE
Defendants Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) and Citigroup Inc. (“Citigroup,” and collectively,
the “Citi Defendants”),1 by the undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 6.1(c) of the Rules of
Procedure for the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML” or the
“Panel”), hereby oppose 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 (the “Motion”) [Dkt. # 1].2 Citibank is named as a party in only two of the allegedly
“Related Actions” at issue, and Citigroup is named as a party in only one of the allegedly
“Related Actions” at issue. There is no reason to enmesh the Citi Defendants in an industry-
wide Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”), which would be inconvenient for the parties, the
witnesses, and counsel.
The Citi Defendants join in the Response in Opposition filed by Defendant Synovus
Bank and others (“Synovus Response”) and incorporate the Synovus Response as if set forth
1
Defendant Citigroup is a financial holding company under Section 4(k) and (l) of the Bank Holding
Company Act of 1956. It is not a proper Defendant, as it does not, and never has, participated in the
Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) and has made no loans in connection with the PPP.
2
The Citi Defendants were initially named as Defendants in the case captioned American Video
Duplicating, et al. v. Citigroup Inc., et al., No. 2:20-cv-03815 (C.D. Cal.), which was listed as a “Related
Action” in the Schedule filed with the Motion. See Schedule of Actions [Dkt. # 1-2], p. 1. On June 2,
2020, the plaintiffs in that case filed a Notice of Dismissal and voluntarily dismissed Citigroup. Thus,
Citigroup is no longer a party to that case. The Citi Defendants have also been named as Defendants in
the case captioned Fahmia, Inc., et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al., No. 1:20-cv-04146 (S.D.N.Y.), which was
listed as a “Related Action” in a Notice of Related Actions filed on June 10, 2020. See Notice of Related
Actions [Dkt. # 98-1], p. 1.
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 169 Filed 06/17/20 Page 2 of 4
herein. Indeed, other than file a series of nearly-identical class actions around the country,
plaintiffs’ counsel have not established that the criteria for creating an MDL have been met.
ARGUMENT
I. The Panel Should Deny The Motion.
As explained in the Synovus Response, Movant cannot meet its burden of demonstrating
that the Agent Fee Cases should be transferred to a single district for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings. As demonstrated in detail in the Synovus Response, which is hereby joined
and incorporated herein by reference:
The Agent Fee Cases primarily focus on common questions of law, not fact;
Movant’s request for centralization is nothing more than an attempt to centralize
litigation on an industry-wide basis, which is disfavored;
Transfer would not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and would
not promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions; and
If any Defendant supports centralization, the Panel can create a Defendant-
specific MDL.
The Panel should deny the Motion for these reasons, which are set forth in detail in the
Synovus Response.
II. If The Panel Grants The Motion And Creates An Industry-Wide MDL, The Related
Actions Should Be Centralized In The Northern District Of Georgia Or, In The
Alternative, The Northern District Of Illinois.
As explained in the Synovus Response, if the Panel grants the Motion—and it should
not—the Related Actions should be centralized in the Northern District of Georgia before Judge
Michael L. Brown. The Northern District of Georgia would be a convenient and economical
location for all parties and their counsel, the District is experienced with handling MDLs and has
2
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 169 Filed 06/17/20 Page 3 of 4
sufficient resources to take on a new case, and Judge Brown does not currently have any MDL
proceedings on his docket.
In the alternative, the Related Actions should be centralized in the Northern District of
Illinois before Judge Edmond E. Chang, who is already overseeing one of the Related Actions.
Like the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois is a convenient and
economical location for all parties and their counsel. See In re African-American Slave
Descendants Litig., 231 F .Supp. 1357, 1358 (J.P.M.L. 2002) (recognizing Northern District of
Illinois as a “geographically central district” that is “a convenient location for a litigation
becoming nationwide in scope”). The Panel has assigned numerous MDLs to the Northern
District of Illinois, and its efficient handling of these cases reflect the District’s capable staff and
history of successfully managing MDLs. The District has handled 105 MDLs, with 10 currently
assigned.3 Despite not previously presiding over an MDL, Judge Chang has the experience to
guide these cases, having been on the bench since 2010, and before that, having a distinguished
career as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Chicago.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, and in the Synovus Response, which is joined and
incorporated herein by reference, the Citi Defendants respectfully request that the Panel deny the
Motion. If the Panel grants the Motion and creates an industry-wide MDL, the Citi Defendants
respectfully request that the Related Actions be centralized in the Northern District of Georgia
3
See U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL Statistics Report – Distribution of Pending
MDL Dockets by District (available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-June-15-2020.pdf),
p. 2 (showing 10 pending MDLs in the Northern District of Illinois); U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, Multidistrict Litigation Termination Through September 30, 2019 (available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/JPML_Cumulative_Terminated_Litigations-FY-2019.pdf)
(showing 95 previously terminated MDLs).
3
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 169 Filed 06/17/20 Page 4 of 4
before Judge Michael L. Brown or, in the alternative, in the Northern District of Illinois before
Judge Edmond E. Chang.
Dated: June 17, 2020 By: /s/ Lucia Nale
Lucia Nale
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-7463
Telephone: (312) 782-0600
lnale@mayerbrown.com
Counsel for Defendants Citibank, N.A. and Citigroup
Inc.
4
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.jpml.1161172.169.0.pdf
- Size
- 394,730 bytes
- SHA-256
- fff4dfe578475cc7e6284531d93c2008449534cd0158fbe272cfb66c6b973872
- Original
- No public link identified.