Court filing
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2950) Filed by… — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 187)
Summary
An interested party motion for an extension of time to respond, filed June 17, 2020 with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in In re: Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") Agent Fees Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2950. The movant, Howard Smukler, plaintiff in Smukler v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 3:20-cv-3413 (N.D. Cal.), asks the Panel under Rule 6.2(e) and Rule 6.3(b) of its Rules of Procedure to extend his deadline to respond to a motion to transfer actions to the Northern District of Georgia under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 from June 17, 2020 to June 24, 2020. It states that his complaint was filed May 20, 2020, that the motion to transfer filed May 22, 2020 did not identify his action among the twelve related actions (Dkt. 1), and that a notice of related action naming it as a tag-along was filed June 15, 2020 (Dkt. 134). It asks for a seven day extension.
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
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) MDL Docket No. 2950
Agent Fees Litigation
INTERESTED PARTY MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
Pursuant to Rule 6.2(e) and 6.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure for the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Interested Party Howard Smukler (“Smukler”), plaintiff in the
case styled Howard Smukler et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al, No. 3:20-cv-3413 (N.D.
Cal.), respectfully moves the Panel for an Order extending the time for Smukler to respond to
Alliant CPA Group LLC’s Motion for Transfer of Actions to the Northern District of Georgia
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for a Coordination and/or Consolidated Proceeding (the “Motion to
Transfer”) from June 17, 2020 to June 24, 2020. In support of the instant motion, Smukler states
as follows:
1. Smukler filed a Class Action Complaint against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (the “Chase Defendants”) in the Northern District of California on May
20, 2020 (“the Smukler Action”).
2. On May 22, 2020, plaintiff in Alliant CPA Group, LLC v. Bank OZK, et al., No.
1:20-cv-02026 filed a Motion to Transfer, seeking to consolidate twelve “Related Actions” into
an MDL proceeding in the Northern District of Georgia. (Dkt. 1.) The Motion to Transfer did not
identify the Smukler Action as one of the Related Actions under consideration for transfer but
did serve a copy of the Motion to Transfer on the Chase Defendants. (Dkt. 1-3.) Responses to the
Motion to Transfer are currently due on June 17, 2020, and replies are due on June 24, 2020.
1
3. On June 15, 2020, counsel for the Chase Defendants filed a Notice of Related
Action in the pending MDL proceedings, identifying the Smukler Action as a potential tag-along
action under consideration for transfer. (Dkt. 134.) It appears the Notice of Related Action was
sent out for service on counsel for Smukler that same day by U.S. Mail (dkt. 134-4), but at the
time of filing this motion, counsel for Smukler had not yet received it.
4. On June 17, 2020, at approximately 4:17 p.m. ET, counsel for Smukler were
notified through the Panel’s CM/ECF system that the Chase Defendants had filed a response to
the Motion to Transfer (dkt. 158) and were thus given notice that the Smukler Action had been
tagged and the need to file a response by the June 17, 2020 deadline.
5. Smukler seeks to file an Interested Party Response to the Motion to Transfer
pursuant to Rule 6.2(e), but requires a brief additional period of time in which to do so given his
case was only just identified as under consideration for transfer.
6. Accordingly, Smukler respectfully requests a modest seven (7) day extension of
the current deadline such that his response would be due no later than June 24, 2020, in order to
prepare an appropriate response that fully addresses the issues presented by the Motion to
Transfer.
7. Smukler’s requested extension is not made for any improper purpose, such as to
cause prejudice or undue delay. Rather, Smukler respectfully submits that he will be prejudiced
if the deadline to respond is not extended, given his short notice of the MDL proceedings as they
relate to his case.
8. Moreover, the requested extension will not directly interfere with any scheduled
hearings, as (to Smukler’s knowledge) the Panel has not yet set a date for oral argument on the
Motion to Transfer.
2
WHEREFORE, Smukler respectfully requests that the Panel enter an Order granting him
a seven (7) day extension of time, until June 24, 2020, to file a response to the Motion to
Transfer.
Respectfully submitted,
HOWARD SMUKLER, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals.
Date: June 17, 2020 By: /s/ Rafey Balabanian
One of the Interested Party’s Attorneys
Rafey Balabanian (SBN – 315962)
rbalabanian@edelson.com
Lily Hough (SBN – 315277)
lhough@edelson.com
Brandt Silver-Korn (SBN – 323530)
bsilverkorn@edelson.com
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, California 94107
Telephone: (415) 212.9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
3
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.jpml.1161172.187.0.pdf
- Size
- 86,892 bytes
- SHA-256
- 104b7ff9f12fe245ea5f8ea09d413b932a7e336c766889f567235d337106c6ea
- Original
- No public link identified.