Order Requiring Response — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 78, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 78 · 2021-09-16 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
21md2992-LAB (MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA CALIFORNIA 
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS LITIGATION 
 
Case No.:  21md2992-LAB (MSB) 
 
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE  
 
On September 16, 2021, Liaison Counsel for the Individual Plaintiffs filed a 
“Plaintiffs’ Request to Appear In-Person for the Scheduled Early Neutral Evaluation” 
which the Court construes as an ex parte motion.  (ECF No. 77.)  Plaintiffs’ counsel 
explains that this case involves voluminous documents relevant to the individual 
plaintiffs’ claims, which Plaintiffs’ counsel have organized and prepared, believing that 
referencing these documents will facilitate more efficient and productive settlement 
discussions.  (Id. at 2-3.)  Because Plaintiffs’ counsel “does not intend to burden defense 
counsel with the requirement of appearing in person,” Plaintiffs request that counsel be 
permitted to appear in-person if they elect to do so.  (Id. at 3.)   
Despite the ex parte nature of this request, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’ counsel 
has not complied with the requirements set forth in the Civil Local Rules or Judge Berg’s 
Chambers Rules.  See CivLR  83.3(g)(2) (“A motion for an order must not be made ex 
parte unless it appears by affidavit or declaration (1) that within a reasonable time 
before the motion the party informed the opposing party or the opposing party's 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 78     Filed 09/17/21     PageID.478     Page 1
of 2

 
2 
21md2992-LAB (MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
attorney when and where the motion would be made; or (2) that the party in good faith 
attempted to inform the opposing party and the opposing party's attorney but was 
unable to do so, specifying the efforts made to inform them; or (3) that for reasons 
specified the party should not be required to inform the opposing party or the opposing 
party's attorney.”); Judge Berg’s Civil Chambers Rule VII (“[D]eclaration(s) in support of 
the ex parte motion must describe meet and confer efforts made to resolve the dispute 
without the Court’s intervention.:).  While ordinarily, the Court would consider Plaintiffs’ 
failure to comply with these requirements an adequate basis for denying the ex parte 
motion, in the interest of timely resolving this matter in advance of the September 29, 
2021, Early Neutral Evaluation Conference so that everyone may plan accordingly, the 
Court ORDERS Defendant to file a response no later than September 21, 2021.  The 
response should indicate whether Defendant or its counsel would like to appear in 
person, and whether Defendant objects to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s personal appearance.   
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated:  September 17, 2021 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 78     Filed 09/17/21     PageID.479     Page 2
of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.78.0.pdf

Size

129,249 bytes

SHA-256

4298c3247a0e90eeb45a56b50c07ec0c2e996d680be45d0b8de19b7cea3736ef

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.78.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)