Class Action Plaintiffs' Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 31 · 2021-07-19 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Class Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (SBN 36324) 
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com 
BRIAN DANITZ (SBN 247403) 
bdanitz@cpmlegal.com 
KARIN B. SWOPE (PRO HAC VICE) 
kswope@cpmlegal.com 
ANDREW F. KIRTLEY (SBN 328023) 
akirtley@cpmlegal.com 
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 
Burlingame, CA  94010 
Telephone: (650) 697-6000 
Fax: (650) 697-0577 
 
Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 
and the Proposed Class in Yick v. Bank of 
America, N.A., 3:21-cv-01092-LAB
MICHAEL RUBIN (SBN 080618) 
mrubin@altber.com 
STACEY M. LEYTON (SBN 203827) 
sleyton@altber.com 
MATTHEW MURRAY (SBN 271461) 
mmurray@altber.com 
CONNIE K. CHAN (SBN 284230) 
cchan@altber.com 
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 
177 Post Street, Suite 300 
San Francisco, CA  94108 
Telephone: (415) 421-7151 
Fax: (415) 362-8064 
 
ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED  
BELOW 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
In re BANK OF AMERICA 
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT 
BENEFITS LITIGATION 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Case No.  3:21-md-2992-LAB 
 
CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFFS’ 
STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
PROPOSED AGENDA 
 
Date:  
July 19, 2021 
Time:  
11:30 a.m. 
Judge: 
Hon. Larry Alan Burns 
Courtroom: 14A 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.21     Page 1 of
18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
i
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page(s) 
I. 
Procedural Background ....................................................................................... 1 
II. Parties’ Recent Meet-and-Confer Efforts........................................................... 4 
III. Responses to the Court’s Order Setting Status Conference ............................. 5 
A. Proposed Organizational Structure ...................................................................... 5 
B. Filing of a Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint .................................. 7 
C. Coordination with Individual Actions ................................................................. 8 
D. Content and Timing for Submission of a Proposed CMO .................................. 8 
E. Proposed Schedule for Resolution of Future Dispositive Motions ..................... 9 
IV. Proposed Agenda Items for the July 19 Status Conference............................ 11 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.22     Page 2 of
18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Pursuant to the Court’s Order Setting Status Conference entered on June 15, 
2021 (“Order”) (Dkt. No. 16), Plaintiffs in Yick v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:21-
cv-01092-LAB-MSB (“Yick”) (the consolidated class action comprising nine 
related class actions), Zoelle v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-01097-LAB-
MSB (“Zoelle”), Wiggins v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-01084-LAB-MSB 
(“Wiggins”), and Smith v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-01137-LAB-MSB 
(“Smith”) (collectively, “Class Action Plaintiffs”), by and through their respective 
attorneys of record, submit Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Report. This 
Report provides a brief procedural background to the class action component of this 
litigation, summarizes the parties’ recent meet-and-confer efforts, and responds to 
the items listed in the Court’s June 15 Order. 
I. 
Procedural Background  
On January 14, 2021, Plaintiff Jennifer Yick commenced the class action 
titled Yick v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-00376, in the Northern District of 
California. See Yick Dkt. No. 1. After the filing of Yick, eight related class actions 
were filed in the Northern District of California,1 two related class actions were 
 
1 See Rodriguez v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 21-cv-00494 (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 20, 
2021); Willrich v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 21-cv-00547 (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 22, 
2021); McClure v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 21-cv-00572 (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 
25, 2021); Oosthuizen & Matthews v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 21-cv-00615 
(N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 26, 2021); Wilson v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 21-cv-00699 
(N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 28, 2021); Mosson v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 21-cv-00743 
(N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 29, 2021); Cajas v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 21-cv-00869 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.23     Page 3 of
18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
filed in the Central District of California (Zoelle and Smith), and one was filed in 
the Eastern District of California (Wiggins).2  Individual actions were also filed: 
four in the Central District of California (Wood, Hart, Verdun, and Alvarez), and 
nine in the Southern District of California (Meza, Brotman, Robinson, Morrell, 
Lawrence, Payton, Talia, Rojas de Charolet, and Abarr).3 
On February 24, 2021, Plaintiff Yick commenced MDL No. 2992, titled In re 
Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, before the Judicial 
Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”). 
 
(N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 3, 2021); Smith v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 21-cv-01466 
(N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 1, 2021). 
2 See Zoelle v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 2:21-cv-00518 (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 20, 
2021) (“Zoelle”); Smith v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 2:21-cv-03385 (C.D. Cal. filed 
Apr. 26, 2021) (“Smith”); Wiggins v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 2:21-cv-00319 
(E.D. Cal. filed Feb. 18, 2021) (“Wiggins”). 
 
3 Wood v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 2:21-cv-01929 (C.D. Cal. filed March 2, 2021) 
(“Wood”); Verdun v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 2:21-cv-04494 (C.D. Cal. filed May 
28, 2021) (“Verdun”); Alvarez v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 2:21-cv-004643 (C.D. 
Cal. filed June 7, 2021) (“Alvarez”); Hart v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 2:21-cv-
04678 (C.D. Cal. filed June 8, 2021) (“Hart”); Meza v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 
3:21-cv-00484 (S.D. Cal. filed March 19, 2021) (“Meza”); Brotman v. Bank of 
America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-00520 (S.D. Cal. filed March 24, 2021) (“Brotman”); 
Robinson v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-00541 (S.D. Cal. filed March 29, 
2021) (“Robinson”); Morrell v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-00542 (S.D. Cal. 
filed March 29, 2021) (“Morrell”); Lawrence v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-
00597 (S.D. Cal. filed April 6, 2021) (“Lawrence”); Payton v. Bank of America, N.A., 
No. 3:21-cv-00644 (S.D. Cal. filed April 13, 2021) (“Payton”); Talia v. Bank of 
America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-00676 (S.D. Cal. filed April 5, 2021) (“Talia”); Rojas de 
Charolet v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-00925 (S.D. Cal. filed May 14, 2021) 
(“Rojas de Charolet”); Abarr et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-01203-
BEN-AGS (S.D. Cal. filed July 1, 2021) (“Abarr”). 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.24     Page 4 of
18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
On March 29, 2021, the district court consolidated the eight related Northern 
District actions into Yick for all purposes, ordered that “[t]he other cases will be 
terminated,” and appointed Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, and Altshuler Berzon 
LLP as Interim Co-Lead Counsel. Yick, Dkt. No. 60. 
On April 1, 2021, Plaintiffs in Yick filed a Consolidated Class Action 
Complaint with fifteen named plaintiffs (id., Dkt. No. 63) and filed a Motion for 
Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification (id., Dkt. No. 64). 
On May 17, 2021, the district court in Yick issued an Order Re Preliminary 
Injunction in which it held that Plaintiffs “have demonstrated a strong likelihood of 
success” on claims for violation of the federal Electronic Funds Transfers Act, for 
violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and for breach of contract; that 
Plaintiffs had shown irreparable injury; and that provisional class certification was 
warranted. Id., Dkt. No. 89. The district court ordered the parties to meet and confer 
regarding the appropriate scope of a preliminary injunction. Id.  
On June 1, 2021, after the Yick parties engaged in an extensive meet-and-
confer process, including a two-day settlement conference before U.S. Magistrate 
Judge Sallie Kim, the district court entered the parties’ joint submission as a 
Preliminary Injunction. Id., Dkt. Nos. 101, 103.  
On June 4, 2021, the JPML transferred the related class actions and four of 
the related individual actions (Wood, Hart, Alvarez, and Verdun) to this Court for 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.25     Page 5 of
18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. See in re Bank of America 
California Unemployment Benefits Litig., Lead Case No. 21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
(S.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 1. Since then, seven individual actions originally filed in the 
Southern District of California (Meza, Brotman, Robinson, Morrell, Payton, Talia, 
and Charolet) have been transferred to this Court and Lawrence and Wood were 
voluntarily dismissed. Abarr, which was filed on July 1, 2021, is currently assigned 
to Judge Whelan and Magistrate Judge Schopler. 
On June 15, 2021, this Court set a status conference for July 19, 2021, and 
stayed all deadlines, all discovery, and all motion practice until after entry of a case 
management order. Id., Dkt. No. 16.   
II. 
Parties’ Recent Meet-and-Confer Efforts 
Since the transfer order, Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the 
Proposed Class in the consolidated Yick matter (“Interim Co-Lead Counsel in 
Yick”) have been meeting and conferring with plaintiffs’ counsel in the Central and 
Eastern District class actions (i.e., Zoelle, Smith, and Wiggins), as well as with all 
counsel in the Northern District class actions, regarding organizational structure and 
other matters relevant to the litigation. As a result of these efforts, the Class Action 
Plaintiffs have reached agreement on the proposed organizational structure set forth 
in Section III.A below. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.26     Page 6 of
18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
On June 29, July 1, and July 6, 2021, Interim Co-Lead Counsel in Yick met and 
conferred with counsel for the eleven individual actions regarding coordinating the 
individual and class actions in this MDL and reached agreement as set forth in 
Section III.C below.  
On June 24 and July 2, 2021, Interim Co-Lead Counsel in Yick met and 
conferred with counsel for Defendant Bank of America, N.A., about the items listed 
in the Court’s June 15 Order and other matters concerning the efficient conduct of 
this MDL. 
III. 
Responses to the Court’s Order Setting Status Conference  
A. 
Proposed Organizational Structure 
All Class Action Plaintiffs agree that the Class Actions should be 
consolidated for pretrial purposes with the following organizational structure:  
(1) appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel in Yick, Cotchett, Pitre & 
McCarthy, LLP (“CPM”) and Altshuler Berzon LLP (“Altshuler”), as Interim 
Co-Lead Counsel for Class Action Plaintiffs and the proposed class; and  
(2) appointment of Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP 
(“Casey Gerry”), counsel for plaintiff Carlos Rodriguez in the consolidated 
Yick matter, as Interim Liaison Counsel.  
Class Action Plaintiffs propose that, under this proposed structure, Interim 
Co-Lead Counsel CPM and Altshuler would be responsible for: (a) determining the 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.27     Page 7 of
18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
litigation strategy on behalf of Class Action Plaintiffs; (b) promoting the orderly 
and efficient conduct of this litigation and avoiding unnecessary duplication and 
unproductive efforts; (c) acting as spokesperson (either personally or by designee) 
for the Plaintiff class at pretrial conferences; (d) delegating work responsibilities; 
(e) entering into stipulations (either personally or by designee) necessary for the 
conduct of the litigation with opposing counsel; and (f) communicating with 
Defendant’s counsel and the Court on behalf of Class Action Plaintiffs and the 
class. Class Action Plaintiffs further propose that Defendant’s counsel may rely on 
all agreements made with Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and that no Class Action 
plaintiff may make any request for or response to discovery, initiate or file any 
other pretrial or trial proceedings, or respond to any dispositive motion or response 
to any dispositive motion, except through Interim Co-Lead Counsel. 
Under the proposal, Interim Liaison Counsel Casey Gerry would have the 
following responsibilities: (a) working with Interim Co-Lead Counsel to delegate 
work responsibilities to other Class Action Plaintiffs’ counsel in a fair and orderly 
manner; (b) monitoring the activities of all Class Action Plaintiffs’ counsel to 
ensure that Class Action Plaintiffs’ pretrial preparation is conducted effectively, 
efficiently, and economically, that schedules are met, and that unnecessary 
expenditures of time and expense are avoided; (c) being available for 
communications to and from this Court, including by distributing orders and other 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.28     Page 8 of
18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
directions from the Court to counsel; (d) providing Class Action Plaintiffs’ counsel 
(as required by applicable Court rules) with the local rules, standing orders, and 
guidelines of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, and any 
other judge’s rules and standing orders of the Court, and ensuring that any updates 
and changes to the local rules, standing orders, and guidelines of this District or the 
Court are timely communicated to counsel as needed; (e) working with all Class 
Action Plaintiffs’ counsel where it is appropriate and relevant to their 
responsibilities; (f) creating and maintaining a master service list of all Class Action 
Parties and their respective counsel, and promptly advising the Court and 
Defendant’s counsel of any changes to the same; (g) distributing to counsel, as 
appropriate, any orders, notices, and correspondence from the Court that are not 
electronically filed, as well as any discovery, pleadings, correspondence, or other 
documents from Defendant’s counsel that are not electronically filed; (h) obtaining 
and maintaining time records for Class Action Plaintiffs’ counsel, and preparing 
and submitting related reports to the Court as requested; (i) communicating with the 
Court as delegated by Interim Co-Lead Counsel; and (j) participating in any 
settlement conferences together with Interim Co-Lead Counsel. 
B. 
Filing of a Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint 
Class Action Plaintiffs believe that efficiency will be served if the Class 
Actions, including any tag-along class actions that may be subsequently filed in or 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.29     Page 9 of
18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
transferred to this Court, are consolidated for pretrial purposes pursuant to Rule 42(a) 
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Class Action Parties further propose that 
a Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint be filed within fourteen (14) days 
after the Court enters the case management order (“CMO”). 
C. 
Coordination with Individual Actions 
After meeting and conferring, Interim Co-Lead Counsel in Yick and counsel 
for the eleven individual actions that are currently pending (Meza, Brotman, 
Robinson, Morrell, Payton, Talia, Charolet, Abarr, Hart, Verdun and Alvarez) agree 
that the plaintiffs in the individual actions will be bound by the Court’s legal 
determinations regarding causes of action that are asserted in the consolidated class 
action.  Counsel further agree that, with the exception of discovery relating to the 
specific records of the individual plaintiffs at Bank of America, all discovery requests 
and depositions will be made by and through interim co-lead counsel for the Class 
Action Plaintiffs in coordination with counsel for the individual plaintiffs. 
D. 
Content and Timing for Submission of a Proposed CMO 
Class Action Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that the parties jointly submit a 
proposed CMO within seven (7) days after the July 19 Status Conference and that 
the proposed CMO provide, in addition to the matters set forth in Civil Local Rule 
16.1(d), the following:  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.30     Page 10
of 18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(a) consolidation for pretrial purposes of the pending class actions (i.e., the 
consolidated Yick action together with Zoelle, Smith, and Wiggins) and 
any tag-along class actions that may be subsequently filed in or 
transferred to this Court;  
(b) appointment of the organizational structure proposed herein by Class 
Action Plaintiffs;  
(c) that the Clerk of the Court administratively close the eight class actions 
previously consolidated for all purposes into Yick;  
(d) that Defendant is not required to answer or otherwise respond to the 
current complaints in any of the Class Actions, or in any tag-along class 
actions that the JPML may transfer to this Court;  
(e) that Class Action Plaintiffs shall file a Master Consolidated Class Action 
Complaint within fourteen (14) days after entry of the CMO; and  
(f) a schedule for resolution of future dispositive motions, as set forth below. 
E. 
Proposed Schedule for Resolution of Future Dispositive Motions 
Class Action Plaintiffs allege that Defendant engaged in practices that 
unlawfully deprived class members of statutory, constitutional, and common law 
rights under state and federal law, including their right to unemployment insurance 
and other benefits. In the consolidated Yick matter in the Northern District, 
Plaintiffs successfully moved for provisional class certification and obtained a 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.31     Page 11
of 18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
preliminary injunction on behalf of plaintiffs and the provisionally certified class. 
On May 17, 2021, the Parties in Yick held their Rule 26(f) conference.  On May 18, 
2021, the district court ordered that “[d]iscovery may proceed in the case 
immediately.” Yick Dkt. No. 93. On June 9, 2021, Interim Co-Lead Counsel in Yick 
served written discovery on Defendant. On June 15, 2021, this Court stayed all 
discovery and deadlines in this matter until after entry of the CMO.  
Class Action Plaintiffs propose the following schedule: 
 
EVENT 
DATE 
MCCAC Filed 
14 days after CMO 
Motion to Dismiss MCCAC Filed 
30 days after filing of MCCAC 
MTD Opposition 
30 days after filing of MTD 
Reply ISO MTD 
20 days after filing of Opposition 
Close of Fact Discovery 
02/25/2022 
Close of Expert Discovery 
03/25/2022 
Motion for Class Certification Filed 
04/22/2022 
Motions for Summary Judgment Filed 
07/22/2022 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.32     Page 12
of 18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
IV. 
Proposed Agenda Items for the July 19 Status Conference 
Class Action Plaintiffs propose the following agenda items for the July 19, 
2021 Status Conference: 
1. Proposed Organizational Structure for the Class Actions: 
a. Whether the Court should appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP 
(“CPM”) and Altshuler Berzon LLP (“Altshuler”), as Interim Co-
Lead Counsel for Class Action Plaintiffs and the proposed class;  
b. Whether the Court should appoint Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla 
Blatt & Penfield LLP, counsel for plaintiff Carlos Rodriguez in the 
consolidated Yick matter, as Interim Liaison Counsel 
2. Administrative closing of eight cases previously consolidated into Yick. 
3. Consolidation of Class Actions for pretrial purposes. 
4. Filing of a Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint. 
5. Schedule for motion to dismiss the MCCAC. 
6. Discovery. 
7. Case Schedule. 
8. Coordination of Class Actions with individual actions. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.33     Page 13
of 18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
Dated:  July 6, 2021 
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 
 
By:  /s/ Brian Danitz 
 
 
 
 
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT 
BRIAN DANITZ 
KARIN B. SWOPE 
ANDREW F. KIRTLEY 
 
Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 
and the Proposed Class in Yick v. Bank of 
America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-01092-LAB 
Dated:  July 6, 2021 
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 
 
By:  /s/ Michael Rubin  
 
 
 
MICHAEL RUBIN 
STACEY M. LEYTON 
MATTHEW MURRAY 
CONNIE K. CHAN 
 
Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs 
and the Proposed Class in Yick v. Bank of 
America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-01092-LAB 
 
Dated:  July 6, 2021 
CASEY GERRY SCHENK 
FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD 
LLP 
 
By:  /s/ David S. Casey  
 
 
 
DAVID S. CASEY JR. 
GAYLE M. BLATT 
 
MORGAN & MORGAN 
JEAN S. MARTIN 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Carlos Rodriguez 
in Yick v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 
3:21-cv-01092-LAB, and Proposed 
Interim Liaison Counsel 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.34     Page 14
of 18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Dated:  July 6, 2021 
HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APLC 
 
By:  /s/ Christopher J. Hamner 
 
 
CHRISTOPHER J. HAMNER 
EVELINA M. SERAFINI 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jory Zoelle, 
Cindy Baker, and Ursula Auburn in 
Zoelle v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 
3:21-cv-01097-LAB 
 
 
Dated:  July 6, 2021 
GARDNER, JANES, NAKKEN, HUGO & 
NOLAN 
 
By:  /s/ James V. Nolan  
 
 
 
JAMES V. NOLAN 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Brian Wiggins in 
Wiggins v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 
3:21-cv-01084-LAB 
 
 
Dated:  July 6, 2021 
PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & 
PENNY, LLP 
 
By:  /s/ Daniel L. Warchaw 
 
 
 
DANIEL L. WARSHAW  
BOBBY POUYA 
 
BOUCHER LLP 
RAYMOND  P. BOUCHER 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jonathan Smith 
and Alex Yuan in Smith v. Bank of 
America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-01137-LAB 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.35     Page 15
of 18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Dated:  July 6, 2021 
SCHACK LAW GROUP 
 
By:  /s/ Natasha N. Sereno 
 
 
 
NATASHA N. SERINO 
SHANNON F. NOCON 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff J. Michael 
Willrich in Yick v. Bank of America, 
N.A., No. 3:21-cv-01092-LAB 
 
 
Dated:  July 6, 2021 
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 
 
By:  Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
 
 
 
FRANCIS A. BOTTINI, JR.  
ANNE B. BESTE  
ALBERT Y. CHANG  
YURY A. KOLESNIKOV 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Lindsay McClure 
in Yick v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 
3:21-cv-01092-LAB 
 
 
Dated:  July 6, 2021 
KNOX RICKSEN LLP 
 
By:  /s/ Thomas E. Fraysse 
 
 
 
THOMAS E. FRAYSSE 
MAISIE C. SOKOLOVE  
AMANDA M. PLOWMAN 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert L. Wilson 
in Yick v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 
3:21-cv-01092-LAB 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.36     Page 16
of 18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Dated:  July 6, 2021 
ANDERLINI & McSWEENEY LLP 
 
By:  /s/ P. Terry Anderlini 
 
 
 
P. TERRY ANDERLINI 
JOSEPH M. GOETHALS 
JACKSON D. MORGUS 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff  
Christopher Mosson in Yick v. Bank of 
America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-01092-LAB 
 
 
Dated:  July 6, 2021 
MARY ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, 
P.C. 
 
 
By:  /s/ Mary E. Alexander 
 
 
 
MARY E. ALEXANDER 
BRENDAN D.S. WAY 
ARIN R. SCAPA 
CATALINA S. MUÑOZ 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Clara Cajas in 
Yick v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:21-
cv-01092-LAB 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.37     Page 17
of 18

 
Class Action Plaintiffs’ Status Conference Statement; Proposed Agenda 
Case No. 3:21-md-2992-LAB
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE 
 
Pursuant to Section 2(f)(4) of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative 
Policies and Procedures Manual, I, Brian Danitz, hereby certify that the content of 
this document is acceptable to counsel for Plaintiff and that I have obtained 
counsel’s authorization to affix his electronic signature to this document. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Brian Danitz 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BRIAN DANITZ 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 31     Filed 07/06/21     PageID.38     Page 18
of 18

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.31.0.pdf

Size

537,108 bytes

SHA-256

5de60c95b48c1f211fd940019e494c3e170cfa82da266f2d9cbe8e7434a23a2a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.31.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)