Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Motion — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 141, 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. 141 · 2023-06-21 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-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
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
MICHAEL RUBIN (SBN 80618) 
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
 
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class  
(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-02992-LAB-MSB 
 
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE 
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO 
FILE MOTION FOR 
RECONSIDERATION  
 
This Document Relates to All Actions 
 
Judge: 
Hon. Larry Alan Burns 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 141     Filed 06/21/23     PageID.1761     Page 1
of 11

 
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration 
1 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-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
I. 
INTRODUCTION 
Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases §3(e), Plaintiffs make 
this ex parte application for leave to file a motion to reconsider the dismissal of their 
Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) claim, which the Court dismissed with prejudice 
for failure to “allege inadequate legal remedies.” Dkt. 126 (“MTD Order”) at 31–33. 
Plaintiffs respectfully submit that, in dismissing this claim, the Court committed four 
clear errors of law: (1) overlooking that Plaintiffs’ UCL claim sought prospective 
injunctive relief based on future irreparable harms for which no legal remedies exist, 
see Dkt. 72 (“MCC”) ¶¶5, 9–33, 111–13, 285, 584; (2) overlooking that Plaintiffs’ 
UCL claim alleged that the Bank’s challenged practices, even if not “unlawful,” are 
nonetheless actionable under the UCL as “unfair” practices, for which no legal 
remedies are available; (3) dismissing the UCL claim without leave to amend even 
though, if amendment were permitted, Plaintiffs could allege inadequate legal 
remedies; and (4) dismissing the UCL claim with prejudice to Plaintiffs’ ability to re-
file that claim in state court, which is contrary to Ninth Circuit precedent governing 
dismissals for lack of equitable jurisdiction.  
II. 
PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
In May 2021, the plaintiffs in member case Yick v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 21-
cv-01092-VC, obtained a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification 
based on a “strong likelihood of success” on their EFTA, contract, and UCL claims. 
539 F.Supp.3d 1023, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2021). On June 2, 2021, the Yick court entered 
the Preliminary Injunction. Yick, Dkt. 103; MCC ¶¶109–10 & Exs. A–B. Two days 
later this MDL was created. Dkt. 1. Plaintiffs subsequently filed their MCC, which 
included a UCL claim challenging the Bank’s practices as “unlawful” and “unfair,” 
for which Plaintiffs sought restitution and prospective injunctive relief, including “an 
order making the existing Preliminary Injunction permanent.” MCC ¶¶575–84, Prayer.  
In October 2021, the Bank moved to dismiss that claim for lack of equitable 
jurisdiction, arguing Plaintiffs had “an adequate remedy at law.” Dkt. 84-1 at 32:1. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 141     Filed 06/21/23     PageID.1762     Page 2
of 11

 
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration 
2 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-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
Plaintiffs opposed, including on the ground that their UCL claim sought prospective 
injunctive relief to permanently enjoin the Bank’s “continued implementation of its 
challenged business practices.” Dkt. 90 at 43:13–18 (citing, as an example, MCC ¶111). 
Plaintiffs also requested leave to amend if the Bank’s motion were granted. Id. at 
14:3–4, 50:12–15. The Bank’s reply brief did not respond to Plaintiffs’ argument that 
a damages remedy could not prevent future harm. See Dkt. 92 at 19:27–20:23. 
On May 25, 2023, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs’ MCC “fails to state a UCL 
claim” under Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020), 
because it “doesn’t allege inadequate legal remedies.” MTD Order at 33:8, 33:11–13. 
The Court then dismissed the UCL claim in its entirety “with prejudice,” id. at 33:14–
15, 75:3–4, without stating why it denied leave to amend or why the dismissal was 
with prejudice. Elsewhere in the MTD Order, the Court allowed claims that “seek 
prospective injunctive relief” to proceed. Id. at 46:4–5. 
III. 
LEGAL STANDARD 
Reconsideration is appropriate if “the district court … committed clear error or 
the initial decision was manifestly unjust.” Dixon v. Robinson, 2007 WL 2700732, at 
*1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2007) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 
1263 (9th Cir. 1993)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b)(6); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7.1(i); 
Hon. Larry A. Burns’ Standing Order in Civil Cases §3(e)(3). 
IV. 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 
A. It was clear error to rule that the MCC does not allege that damages 
are inadequate to prevent future harm. 
 “[U]nder Sonner, a plaintiff must plead inadequate legal remedies in the 
operative pleading to allege claims for equitable relief.” Brand v. KSF Acquisition 
Corp., 2023 WL 3225409, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2023) (quoting Rivera v. Jeld-
Wen, Inc., 2022 WL 3702934, at *12 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2022)). A complaint meets 
this requirement when its allegations “demonstrate the inadequacy of a legal remedy.” 
MTD Order at 33:6-8 (quoting Sharma v. Volkswagen AG, 524 F.Supp.3d 891, 907 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 141     Filed 06/21/23     PageID.1763     Page 3
of 11

 
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration 
3 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-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
(N.D. Cal. 2021)). What matters is not whether plaintiffs make a boilerplate allegation 
of inadequate legal remedies, but whether they “allege facts suggesting that damages 
are insufficient.” Antonyan v. Ford Motor Co., 2022 WL 1299964, at *6 (C.D. Cal. 
Mar. 30, 2022).1 When injunctive relief is sought to prevent future harms, the general 
rule is that “legal damages are typically inadequate.” Kryzhanovskiy v. Amazon.com 
Servs., Inc., 2022 WL 2345677, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2022). 
Although the MCC does not contain a boilerplate allegation that legal remedies 
are “inadequate,” it amply satisfies Sonner by repeatedly alleging that Plaintiffs are 
suffering “irreparable harm” (MCC ¶¶5, 285) and “irreparable injury” (MCC ¶¶9–33). 
“Irreparable injury” is “[a]n injury that cannot be adequately measured or compensated 
by money and is therefore often considered remediable by injunction,” and is 
synonymous with “irreparable harm” and “nonpecuniary injury.” BLACK’S LAW 
DICTIONARY, Injury (11th ed. 2019). The MCC also incorporates by reference the 
Preliminary Injunction’s finding of irreparable harm, which included a finding that 
the Bank’s conduct “will likely cause [class members] to be evicted, go hungry, or be 
denied necessary medical care.” MCC ¶109 & Ex. A at 2. 
“[R]etrospective damages are not an adequate remedy for the prospective harm 
that injunctions are designed to prevent.” Graham v. Cent. Garden & Pet Co., 2023 WL 
2744391, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2023).2 The prospective nature of the injunctive 
 
1 Accord Clevenger v. Welch Foods Inc., 2022 WL 18228288, at *4–5 (C.D. Cal. 
Dec. 14, 2022); McNamara v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 21-cv-1245-LAB, Dkt. 20 at 
17–18 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2022) (dismissing without prejudice UCL claim seeking 
restitution where plaintiff “doesn’t allege any facts suggesting that legal remedies are 
insufficient,” and “doesn’t seek injunctive relief that might suggest the insufficiency 
of legal remedies”). 
2 Accord Warren v. Whole Foods Mkt. Cal., Inc., 2022 WL 2644103, at *9 (N.D. 
Cal. July 8, 2022); Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc., 2022 WL 827246, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 
Mar. 18, 2022); Souter v. Edgewell Pers. Care Co., 2022 WL 485000, at *12–13 
(S.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2022); Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corp., 2021 WL 3621837, at 
*11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2021); Andino v. Apple, Inc., 2021 WL 1549667, at *5 (E.D. 
Cal. Apr. 20, 2021). 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 141     Filed 06/21/23     PageID.1764     Page 4
of 11

 
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration 
4 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-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
relief sought here distinguishes it from cases dismissing requests for retrospective 
relief under Sonner. See, e.g., Kryzhanovskiy, 2022 WL 2345677, at *4 (collecting 
cases). Accordingly, the MCC plausibly alleges that Plaintiffs’ legal remedies are 
inadequate to prevent future harm, and it was clear error to rule otherwise. 
B. 
It was clear error to rule that the MCC does not allege that damages 
are inadequate to remedy conduct that, even if deemed not to be 
“unlawful,” is nevertheless “unfair.” 
The MCC alleges the Bank’s challenged conduct is actionable under the UCL 
because (1) it is “unlawful” to the extent it violates predicate statutes, regulations, or 
common law, and in the alternative, (2) it is “unfair,” because the harm caused by the 
Bank’s conduct outweighs its potential benefits. See MCC ¶¶576–82; Cal. Bus. & 
Prof. Code §17200. In dismissing Plaintiffs’ UCL claim on the ground that their other 
claims for relief provide adequate legal remedies, the Court overlooked that Plaintiffs 
sought restitution and injunctive relief under the UCL for challenged practices that, if 
deemed not to be unlawful, would be actionable as “unfair.” MCC ¶¶577–78; see Dkt. 
90 (MTD Opp.) at 40–43. In that circumstance, Plaintiffs would have no adequate 
remedy at law because no “law” would have been violated. See Shuman v. SquareTrade 
Inc., 2021 WL 5113182, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2021) (legal remedies are inadequate 
“when an equitable claim for restitution relies on a different theory” than plaintiff’s 
legal claims); In re JUUL Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., 497 
F.Supp.3d 552, 639 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (similar, particularly where UCL “allegations 
regarding unfair conduct are not [] coextensive with plaintiffs’ legal claims”). 
C. 
It was clear error to deny Plaintiffs leave to amend their UCL claim 
to more clearly allege inadequate legal remedies. 
Alternatively, the Court committed clear error by denying Plaintiffs leave to 
amend. Courts “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires,” Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and this command should be “applied with extreme liberality.” 
Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154–55 (9th Cir. 2014). District 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 141     Filed 06/21/23     PageID.1765     Page 5
of 11

 
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration 
5 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-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
courts routinely grant leave to amend UCL claims that they dismiss under Sonner, 
particularly where, as here, there has been no previous order of dismissal. See, e.g., 
Guthrie v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., 561 F.Supp.3d 869, 875 (N.D. Cal. 2021). 
Indeed, this Court has often dismissed claims under Sonner with leave to amend. See, 
e.g., McCraner v. Wells Fargo & Co., 2023 WL 2728719, at *8–9 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 
2023); Brand, 2023 WL 3225409, at *4, *9; McNamara, supra note 1, Dkt. 20 at 17–
18. Because Plaintiffs can amend their UCL claim to allege the inadequacy of legal 
remedies, including for each of the reasons stated above, it was clear error to have 
denied them that opportunity. 
D. 
It was clear error to dismiss the UCL claim with prejudice to 
Plaintiffs’ ability to re-file that claim in state court. 
Even if this Court were to conclude that it appropriately dismissed the UCL 
claim without leave to amend for failure to allege inadequate legal remedies, binding 
Ninth Circuit precedent provides that “the district court should have dismissed 
[Plaintiffs’] UCL claim without prejudice to refiling the same claim in state court.” 
Guzman v. Polaris Indus. Inc., 49 F.4th 1308, 1314 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied sub 
nom. Polaris Indus. Inc. v. Albright, No. 22-987, 2023 WL 3937623 (U.S. June 12, 
2023). This is because “a federal court that dismisses a claim for lack of equitable 
jurisdiction necessarily declines to assume the jurisdiction and decide the cause.” Id. 
“Thus, a federal court’s pre-merits determination to withhold relief is binding on 
other federal courts, but not on courts outside the federal system that might properly 
exercise their own jurisdiction over the claim.” Id.; accord Clevenger v. Welch Foods 
Inc., 2022 WL 18228288, at *5 n.3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2022). 
V. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respect seek leave to file a motion to 
reconsider the dismissal with prejudice of their UCL claim. 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 141     Filed 06/21/23     PageID.1766     Page 6
of 11

 
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration 
6 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-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
 
Dated:  June 21, 2023 
 
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 
 
By:   /s/ Andrew F. Kirtley 
 
 
 
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT  
BRIAN DANITZ  
KARIN B. SWOPE  
ANDREW F. KIRTLEY 
 
 
Dated:  June 21, 2023 
 
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 
 
 
By:  /s/ Michael Rubin  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
MICHAEL RUBIN  
STACEY M. LEYTON  
MATTHEW MURRAY  
CONNIE K. CHAN 
 
 
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the 
Proposed Class 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 141     Filed 06/21/23     PageID.1767     Page 7
of 11

 
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration 
7 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-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
DAVID S. CASEY, JR. (SBN 060768) 
dcasey@cglaw.com 
GAYLE M. BLATT (SBN 122048) 
gmb@cglaw.com 
JEREMY ROBINSON (SBN 188325) 
jrobinson@cglaw.com 
P. CAMILLE GUERRA (SBN 326546)
camille@cglaw.com 
CATHERINE McBAIN (SBN 303911) 
kmcbain@cglaw.com 
CASEY GERRY SCHENK 
FRANCAVILLA BLATT & 
PENFIELD, LLP 
110 Laurel Street 
San Diego, CA 92101 
Telephone: (619) 238-1811 
Fax: (619) 544-9232 
 
Liaison Counsel for Class Plaintiffs 
JOSHUA B. SWIGART (SBN 225557) 
josh@swigartlawgroup.com 
JULIANA G. BLAHA (SBN 331066) 
juliana@swigartlawgroup.com 
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 
2221 Camino Del Rio South. Suite 308 
San Diego, CA 92108 
Telephone: (866) 219-3343 
Fax: (866) 219-8344 
DANIEL G. SHAY (SBN 250548) 
danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com 
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY 
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 
San Diego, CA 92108 
Telephone: (619) 222-7429 
Fax: (866) 431-3292 
Liaison Counsel for Individual Plaintiffs 
 
 
DANIEL L. WARSHAW (SBN 185365)
dwarshaw@pswlaw.com 
BOBBY POUYA (SBN 245527) 
bpouya@pswlaw.com 
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 
Telephone: (818) 788-8300 
Fax: (818) 788-8104 
RAYMOND P. BOUCHER (SBN 115364)
ray@boucher.la 
BOUCHER LLP 
21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 
Woodland Hills, CA 91367 
Telephone: (818) 340-5400 
Fax: (818) 340-5401 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jonathan Smith, 
Alex Yuan, and the Proposed Class 
 
 
FRANCIS A. BOTTINI, JR. (SBN 175783) 
fbottini@bottinilaw.com 
ANNE B. BESTE (SBN 326881) 
abeste@bottinilaw.com 
ALBERT Y. CHANG (SBN 296065) 
achang@bottinilaw.com 
YURY A. KOLESNIKOV (SBN 271173) 
ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com 
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 
La Jolla, CA 92037 
Telephone: (858) 914-2001 
Fax: (858) 914-2002 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Lindsay McClure 
and the Proposed Class 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 141     Filed 06/21/23     PageID.1768     Page 8
of 11

 
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration 
8 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-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
THOMAS E. FRAYSSE (SBN 104436)
tef@knoxricksen.com 
MAISIE C. SOKOLOVE (SBN 239665)
mcs@knoxricksen.com 
AMANDA M. PLOWMAN (SBN 317462)
amp@knoxricksen.com 
KNOX RICKSEN LLP 
2033 N. Main Street, Suite 340 
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 
Telephone: (925) 433-2500 
Fax: (925) 433-2505 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert L. Wilson 
and the Proposed Class 
 
 
MARY E. ALEXANDER (SBN 104173)
malexander@maryalexanderlaw.com 
BRENDAN D.S. WAY (SBN 261705) 
bway@maryalexanderlaw.com 
ARIN R. SCAPA (SBN 283400) 
ascapa@maryalexanderlaw.com 
CATALINA S. MUÑOZ (SBN 317856)
cmunoz@maryalexanderlaw.com 
MARY ALEXANDER & 
ASSOCIATES, P.C. 
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1303 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Telephone: (415) 433-4440 
Fax: (415) 433-5440 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Clara Cajas  
and the Proposed Class 
 
 
ADAM MCNEILE (SBN 280296) 
adam@kbklegal.com 
KRISTIN KEMNITZER (SBN 278946) 
kristin@kbklegal.com 
KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP 
42 Miller Avenue, 3rd Floor 
Mill Valley, CA 94941 
Telephone: (415) 632-1900 
Fax: (415) 632-1901 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Roland Oosthuizen, 
Rosemary Mathews, and the Proposed 
Class 
 
 
 
CHRISTOPHER J. HAMNER (SBN 197117)
chamner@hamnerlaw.com 
EVELINA M. SERAFINI (SBN 187137) 
eserafini@hamnerlaw.com 
HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APLC 
26565 West Agoura Road, Suite 200 
Calabasas, CA 91302 
Telephone: (888) 416-6654 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jory Zoelle, Cindy 
Baker, Ursula Auburn, and the Proposed 
Class 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 141     Filed 06/21/23     PageID.1769     Page 9
of 11

 
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration 
9 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-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
JAMES V. NOLAN (SBN 84239) 
jvnolan@yololaw.com 
ROBERT P. NAKKEN (SBN 77550) 
rnakken@yololaw.com 
DAVID W. JANES (SBN 71334) 
dwjanes@yololaw.com 
GARDNER, JANES, NAKKEN, 
HUGO & NOLAN LAWYERS 
429 First Street 
Woodland, CA 95695 
Telephone: (530) 662-7367 
Fax: (530) 666-9116 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Brian Wiggins 
and the Proposed Class 
 
 
 
THOMAS MARTIN III (SBN 218456) 
tom@mblawapc.com 
NICHOLAS J. BONTRAGER (SBN 252114)
nick@mblawapc.com 
MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC 
4605 Lankershim Blvd., Suite 535 
Toluca Lake, CA 91602 
Telephone: (323) 940-1700 
Fax: (323) 328-8095 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven Hart 
BENJAMIN GUBERNICK (SBN 321883) 
ben@gubernicklaw.com 
GUBERNICK LAW, P.L.L.C. 
10720 W. Indian School Rd., Suite 19 
Phoenix, AZ 85037 
Telephone: (734) 678-5169 
 
DAVID N. LAKE (SBN 180775) 
david@lakelawpc.com 
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE 
16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650 
Encino, CA 91436 
Telephone: (818) 788-5100 
Fax: (818) 479-9990 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Julie Hicks, Kuang 
Ting Chong, Stephanie Moore, and the 
Proposed Class 
 
 
ANDRE L. VERDUN (SBN 365436) 
Andre@VerdunLaw.com 
LAW OFFICES OF ANDRE L. VERDUN 
1777 N. Ventura Avenue 
Ventura, CA 93001 
Telephone: (619) 880-0110 
Fax: (866) 786-6993 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rosa Alvarez, Elana 
Martina Rojas de Charolet, and Jessie 
Verdun 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 141     Filed 06/21/23     PageID.1770     Page
10 of 11

 
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration 
10 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-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
SIGNATURE CERTIFICATION 
Pursuant to Section 2(f)(4) of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative 
Policies and Procedures Manual, I, Andrew F. Kirtley, hereby certify that the content 
of this document is acceptable to all the signatories herein and that I have obtained 
counsel’s authorization to affix their electronic signatures to this document. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Andrew F. Kirtley 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       ANDREW F. KIRTLEY 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 141     Filed 06/21/23     PageID.1771     Page
11 of 11

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.141.0.pdf

Size

512,501 bytes

SHA-256

04cd0d5a3ed47bdd8d7be92bc84d70bea19b7c115270d5b7342dc7a76e51c3b5

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.141.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)