Court filing
Notice of MDL Transfer ORDER, re MDL No. 2992 — Bofa Ca Unemployment (Dkt. 98)
No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 98 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
A transfer order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in In re: Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, MDL No. 2992, filed June 1, 2022 as Doc. 98 in No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On the motion of Bank of America, N.A. under 28 U.S.C. § 1407(c), the Panel transfers Boyd v. Bank of America, N.A., C.A. No. 2:22-00244 (E.D. Cal.), into the MDL, noting that the plaintiff did not respond. The order finds that Boyd shares factual questions with the MDL actions about BANA's practices for investigating fraud reports from recipients of California Employment Development Department benefits, while also raising some unique questions. It assigns the action to the Honorable Larry A. Burns for pretrial proceedings and lists Karen K. Caldwell as the Panel's Chair.
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 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 98 Filed 06/01/22 PageID.807 Page 1
of 3
Jun 01 2022
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on s/ Julieo
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA CALIFORNIA
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS LITIGATION MDL No. 2992
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel: ∗ Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) moves under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407(c) for transfer of the action listed on Schedule A (Boyd) to the Southern District of
California for inclusion in MDL No. 2992. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion and, therefore,
is deemed to acquiesce to it. See Panel Rule 6.1(c).
After considering the argument of counsel, we find that the Boyd action involves common
questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2992, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. The actions in the MDL involve BANA’s conduct in distributing
unemployment benefits for the California Employment Development Department (“EDD”).
In the order establishing this MDL, we held that centralization was warranted for actions alleging
that “BANA, the entity contracted by California to distribute unemployment benefits to eligible
recipients, failed to safeguard and properly manage benefits during the pandemic and unlawfully
froze or denied access to funds in recipients’ debit card accounts.” See In re Bank of America
California Unemployment Benefits Litig., 544 F. Supp. 3d 1366, 1367 (J.P.M.L. 2021). We further
explained that the shared factual issues include “BANA’s policy and practices for responding to
fraud reports from recipients of EDD benefits – in particular, the process for conducting
investigations in response to error claims.” Id. In Boyd, plaintiff alleges that an acquaintance stole
funds from her EDD account in late 2020, she made a timely report to BANA, and BANA
“did not make a good faith investigation of the unauthorized electronic fund transfers” and “to this
day refuses to investigate the unauthorized transfers.” 1 Thus, Boyd and the actions in the MDL
raise overlapping factual questions concerning BANA’s policy and practices for investigating and
responding to fraud reports from recipients of EDD benefits during the pandemic.
We observe that Boyd additionally raises some unique factual questions concerning theft
arising from a personal relationship with the alleged perpetrator and BANA’s alleged requirement
of a change of address from a homeless person as a condition of remedying alleged fraud. But our
review of the record leads us to conclude that the overall interests of convenience and efficiency
∗
Judge David C. Norton did not participate in the decision of this matter.
1
See Boyd v. Bank of America, N.A., C.A. No. 22-00244, Compl. ¶¶ 41-45 (E.D. Cal.).
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 98 Filed 06/01/22 PageID.808 Page 2
of 3
-2-
will be served by transfer of Boyd, based on its overlap with the MDL as to motions and discovery
related to BANA’s practices for investigating and responding to fraud claims from EDD benefits
recipients. If the transferee judge finds at any point in the pretrial proceedings that the inclusion
of Boyd will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation, Section 1407 remand of the action to its transferor court can be
accomplished with a minimum of delay. See Panel Rules 10.1-10.3.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action listed on Schedule A is transferred to the
Southern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Larry
A. Burns for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
_________________________________________
Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
Nathaniel M. Gorton Matthew F. Kennelly
Roger T. Benitez Dale A. Kimball
Madeline Cox Arleo
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 98 Filed 06/01/22 PageID.809 Page 3
of 3
IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA CALIFORNIA
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS LITIGATION MDL No. 2992
SCHEDULE A
Eastern District of California
BOYD v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., C.A. No. 2:22-00244
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.casd.709615.98.0.pdf
- Size
- 357,827 bytes
- SHA-256
- 683e5ab3f9dc91adca5c6021178138aab061734fae730e53926defc2d627569b
- Original
- PACER (login required)