Memo of Points and Authorities — Bofa Ca Unemployment (Dkt. 151.1)

Summary

Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL Claim, the memorandum of points and authorities filed 08/07/23 as Document 151-1 in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, and noticed for hearing on August 28, 2023 before Hon. Larry Alan Burns. Class counsel argue that damages for past violations cannot prevent future harm, and that damages are unavailable for conduct that is unfair under California's Unfair Competition Law without being unlawful. They also argue it was clear error to deny leave to amend the UCL claim and to dismiss it with prejudice, which would bar refiling it in state court.

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

Record facts

Full text

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL Claim 
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’ MOTION FOR 
RECONSIDERATION OF 
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF 
UCL CLAIM 
 
This Document Relates to All Actions 
 
Date: 
August 28, 2023 
Time: 
11:30 a.m. 
Dept. 
Courtroom 14A, 14th Fl.  
Judge: 
Hon. Larry Alan Burns 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1848     Page
1 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         i 
Claim; 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
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 
 
I. 
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 
II. 
PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................................................ 1 
III. 
LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................... 3 
IV. 
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 4 
A. 
Damages for past violations is not an adequate remedy to prevent  
future harm. ............................................................................................ 4 
B. 
Damages are not available for conduct that, although not “unlawful,” 
nonetheless violates the UCL because it is “unfair.” ............................. 6 
C. 
It was clear error to deny Plaintiffs leave to amend their UCL 
claimto allege inadequate legal remedies more specifically. ................. 9 
D. 
It was clear error to dismiss the UCL claim with prejudice, and  
thereby to preclude Plaintiffs from re-filing that claim in state court. 10 
V. 
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 11 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1849     Page
2 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         ii 
Claim; 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
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
 
Page(s) 
Cases 
Andino v. Apple, Inc., 
No. 20-cv-01628-JAM, 2021 WL 1549667 (E.D. Cal. 2021) ............................ 5 
Antonyan v. Ford Motor Co., 
No. 21-cv-00945-DMG, 2022 WL 1299964 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2022) ............ 4 
Brand v. KSF Acquisition Corp., 
No. 22-cv-00392-LAB, 2023 WL 3225409 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2023) ........ 4, 10 
Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corp., 
No. 21-cv-01418-EMC, 2021 WL 3621837 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ........................... 5 
Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., 
19 Cal.App.5th 1138 (2018) ................................................................................ 7 
Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 
20 Cal.4th 163 (1999) .......................................................................................... 7 
Clevenger v. Welch Foods Inc., 
No. 20-cv-1859-CJC, 2022 WL 18228288 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2022) ............. 11 
Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc., 
No. 19-cv-07918-WHA, 2022 WL 827246 (N.D. Cal. 2022) ............................ 5 
Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 
754 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................. 9 
Dixon v. Robinson, 
No. 07-cv-00553-LAB, 2007 WL 2700732 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2007) ............. 3 
Elgindy v. AGA Serv. Co., 
No. 20-cv-06304-JST, 2021 WL 1176535 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021) ............... 8 
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 
67 F.4th 946 (2023) ......................................................................................... 7, 8 
Graham v. Cent. Garden & Pet Co., 
No. 22-cv-06507-JSC, 2023 WL 2744391 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2023) ............... 5 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1850     Page
3 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         iii 
Claim; 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
Guthrie v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., 
561 F.Supp.3d 869 (N.D. Cal. 2021)................................................................... 9 
Guzman v. Polaris Indus. Inc., 
49 F.4th 1308 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied sub nom. Polaris Indus. 
Inc. v. Albright, No. 22-987, 2023 WL 3937623 (U.S. June 12, 2023) ............ 11 
In re JUUL Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., 
497 F.Supp.3d 552 (N.D. Cal. 2020)................................................................... 8 
Kryzhanovskiy v. Amazon.com Servs., Inc., 
No. 21-cv-01292-DAD, 2022 WL 2345677 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2022) ......... 4, 6 
Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 
504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................... 9 
McCraner v. Wells Fargo & Co., 
No. 21-cv-1246-LAB, 2023 WL 2728719 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2023) .............. 10 
McNamara v. Wells Fargo & Co., 
No. 21-cv-1245-LAB, Dkt. 20 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2022) ............................ 4, 10 
Rubio v. Cap. One Bank, 
613 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................. 7 
Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 
971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................... passim 
Souter v. Edgewell Personal Care Co., 
No. 20-cv-01486-TWR, 2022 WL 485000 (S.D. Cal. 2022) .............................. 5 
Warren v. Whole Foods Market California, Inc., 
No. 21-cv-04577-EMC, 2022 WL 2644103 (N.D. Cal. 2022) ........................... 5 
Yick v. Bank of Am., N.A., 
No. 21-cv-01092-VC (N.D. Cal.) .............................................................. 1, 3, 10 
Zeiger v. WellPet LLC, 
526 F.Supp.3d 652 (N.D. Cal. 2021)................................................................... 8 
Zuniga v. Bank of Am., N.A., 
No. 14-cv-06471-MWF, 2014 WL 7156403 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2014) .............. 7 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1851     Page
4 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         iv 
Claim; 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
Statutes 
15 U.S.C. §1693(b) ................................................................................................... 9 
15 U.S.C. §1693f ...................................................................................................... 9 
California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 ............ passim 
Electronic Fund Transfers Act .............................................................................. 1, 9 
 
Rules 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
 
15(a)(2) ................................................................................................................ 9 
 
59(e) ................................................................................................................. 1, 4 
 
60(b) ................................................................................................................. 1, 4 
S.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 7.1(i) .......................................................................... 1, 4 
 
Other Authorities 
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, Injury (11th ed. 2019) ................................................. 5 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1852     Page
5 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         1 
Claim; 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 Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Civil 
Local Rule 7.1(i), and the Court’s August 1, 2023 Order Granting Leave to File 
Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 148), Plaintiffs respectfully submit this motion for 
reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Unfair Competition Law 
(“UCL”) claim, with prejudice, on the ground that Plaintiffs had failed to “allege 
inadequate legal remedies.” Dkt. 126 (“MTD Order”) at 31–33.  
As stated in Plaintiffs’ application for leave to file this motion (Dkt. 141 at 1) 
and in the Court’s subsequent order (Dkt. 148 at 2), Plaintiffs submit that the Court 
committed four clear errors of law in dismissing Plaintiffs’ UCL claim with prejudice: 
(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 independently 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 (N.D. Cal.), obtained a preliminary injunction and provisional class 
certification based on having established a “strong likelihood of success” on their 
Electronic Fund Transfers Act (“EFTA”), breach-of-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.  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1853     Page
6 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         2 
Claim; 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 filed their Master Consolidated Complaint (“MCC”) (Dkt. 72) in this 
MDL in August 2021. That complaint included a UCL claim alleging that the Bank’s 
challenged practices were both “unlawful” and “unfair.” Plaintiffs’ requested 
remedies for those UCL violations were restitution and prospective injunctive relief, 
including “an order making the existing Preliminary Injunction permanent.” MCC 
¶¶575–84 & Prayer. Although the MCC did not contain a boilerplate allegation that 
legal remedies are inadequate, it expressly alleged, and set forth detailed allegations 
showing, that the Bank’s UCL violations had caused and were continuing to cause 
Plaintiffs to suffer “irreparable harm” (MCC ¶¶5, 285) and “irreparable injury” (MCC 
¶¶9–33).1 
In October 2021, the Bank moved to dismiss the UCL claim for lack of 
equitable jurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiffs’ request for damages in connection with 
their other claims for relief provided them “an adequate remedy at law” with respect 
to their UCL claim. Dkt. 84-1 at 32:5. Plaintiffs opposed, including on the ground that 
their UCL claim sought prospective injunctive relief to “prevent future harm” from 
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 
their UCL claim if the Bank’s motion were granted. Id. at 14:3–4, 50:12–15. The 
 
1 See also MCC ¶51 (alleging the Bank “continues” to freeze and block EDD debit 
card accounts); MCC ¶56 (alleging the Bank’s “ongoing failure to secure Plaintiffs’ 
and Class Members’ Cardholder Information … continues to violate” the CCPA and 
other laws); MCC ¶107 (alleging the Bank “continues to block the Accounts of 
legitimate Cardholders based solely on the results of the Bank’s Claim Fraud Filter, 
without any reasonable investigation”); MCC ¶111–12 (similar); MCC ¶542 (alleging 
the “volume of calls from EDD Debit Cardholders to the Bank’s customer service to 
report unauthorized transactions … continues to be, so great, and the Bank’s customer 
service department is so understaffed, that the Bank routinely causes EDD Debit 
Cardholders to wait on hold for multiple hours”); MCC ¶584 (seeking injunctive relief 
“prohibiting the Bank from continuing its unfair and unlawful business practices,” and 
“requiring the Bank to take reasonable measures to prevent future unauthorized use of 
EDD Debit Cards and Accounts”). 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1854     Page
7 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         3 
Claim; 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
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. 
In May 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Bank’s motion to 
dismiss the MCC and granted Plaintiffs leave to amend certain dismissed claims. See 
MTD Order (Dkt. 126). With respect to the UCL claim, the Court ruled that the 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.” Id. 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 the Court denied leave to amend or why 
the dismissal was with prejudice.  
In June 2023, Plaintiffs filed their now-operative First Amended Master 
Consolidated Complaint (“FAMCC”) (Dkt. 136). The FAMCC includes an express 
allegation, incorporated by reference into Plaintiffs’ UCL claim, that Plaintiffs’ “legal 
remedies are inadequate to prevent future harm from the Bank’s unlawful and unfair 
conduct that is the subject of this Complaint, and that is or would be ongoing but for 
the preliminary injunction the consolidated Yick plaintiffs obtained in June 2021.” 
FAMCC ¶¶285, 575. The FAMCC’s UCL claim also notes that the Court had 
“dismissed this claim with prejudice for failure to allege inadequate legal remedies” 
and that “Plaintiffs intend to seek leave to file a motion to reconsider that ruling.” 
FAMCC ¶¶575–84 & n.34.  
Shortly after the Court ruled on the Bank’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs timely 
filed an ex parte application for leave to file a motion for reconsideration regarding 
the Court’s dismissal of the UCL claim. Dkt. 136. The Court granted that application 
(Dkt. 148), and this motion now follows. 
III. 
LEGAL STANDARD 
Reconsideration is appropriate if “the district court … committed clear error or 
the initial decision was manifestly unjust.” Dixon v. Robinson, No. 07-cv-00553-LAB, 
2007 WL 2700732, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2007) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1855     Page
8 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         4 
Claim; 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
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. 
ARGUMENT 
A. 
Damages for past violations is not an adequate remedy 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., No. 22-cv-00392-LAB, 2023 WL 3225409, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2023) 
(quoting Rivera v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., No. 21-cv-01816-AJB, 2022 WL 3702934, at *12 
(S.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2022)). A complaint satisfies 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 (N.D. Cal. 2021)). What matters 
is not whether plaintiffs include a boilerplate allegation of inadequate legal remedies, 
but whether they “allege facts suggesting that damages are insufficient.” Antonyan v. 
Ford Motor Co., No. 21-cv-00945-DMG, 2022 WL 1299964, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 
30, 2022); accord 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”). When prospective injunctive relief is sought, the general rule is 
that “legal damages are typically inadequate to remedy the future harms from ongoing 
violations.” Kryzhanovskiy v. Amazon.com Servs., Inc., No. 21-cv-01292-DAD, 2022 
WL 2345677, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2022). 
Although the MCC did not contain a boilerplate allegation that legal remedies 
were “inadequate,” it fully satisfied Sonner by repeatedly alleging that Plaintiffs were 
continuing to suffer “irreparable harm” (MCC ¶¶5, 285) and “irreparable injury” 
(MCC ¶¶9–33). “Irreparable injury” is “[a]n injury that cannot be adequately measured 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1856     Page
9 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         5 
Claim; 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
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 incorporated 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. 
Even if the MCC had not contained express allegations of “irreparable harm” 
and “irreparable injury,” it is well established that “retrospective damages are not an 
adequate remedy for the prospective harm that injunctions are designed to prevent.” 
Graham v. Cent. Garden & Pet Co., No. 22-cv-06507-JSC, 2023 WL 2744391, at *4 
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2023); accord Warren v. Whole Foods Market California, Inc., 
No. 21-cv-04577-EMC, 2022 WL 2644103, at *9 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (“because the 
injunctive relief that Plaintiffs request ‘is prospective’ and their ‘remedy at law, 
damages, is retrospective,’ their claim for an injunction does not appear to be barred 
by Sonner” (citations omitted)); Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc., No. 19-cv-07918-WHA, 
2022 WL 827246, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (“A remedy at law may provide adequate 
relief for certain harms but fail to remedy others, necessitating equitable relief. … 
Manifest differences thus exist between, for example, the retrospective equitable 
remedy of restitution and the prospective equitable remedy of an injunction.” 
(citations omitted)); Souter v. Edgewell Personal Care Co., No. 20-cv-01486-TWR, 
2022 WL 485000, at *13 (S.D. Cal. 2022) (“Plaintiff seeks relief based on a likelihood 
of future harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law; therefore, Plaintiff has 
properly sought and alleged entitlement to an equitable remedy.” (citation omitted)); 
Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corp., No. 21-cv-01418-EMC, 2021 WL 3621837, at *11 
(N.D. Cal. 2021) (“courts have declined to apply Sonner to bar UCL claims for 
injunctive relief, recognizing that the prospect of paying damages is sometimes 
insufficient to deter a defendant from engaging in an alleged unlawful, unfair, or 
fraudulent business practice” (citing cases)); Andino v. Apple, Inc., No. 20-cv-01628-
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1857     Page
10 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         6 
Claim; 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
JAM, 2021 WL 1549667, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 2021) (“Money damages are an inadequate 
remedy for future harm, as they will not prevent Defendant from continuing the 
allegedly deceptive practice.”). 
The MCC made clear that Plaintiffs were seeking injunctive relief to prevent 
future harm, both specifically under the UCL claim for relief and in the Prayer for 
Relief. See MCC ¶584 (seeking all available “equitable relief, including injunctive 
relief (a) prohibiting the Bank from continuing its unfair and unlawful business 
practices, and (b) requiring the Bank to take reasonable measures to prevent future 
unauthorized use of EDD Debit Cards and Accounts, and (c) requiring the Bank to 
ensure timely and adequate processing of Cardholders’ claims regarding unauthorized 
or fraudulent use of their Cards or Accounts”); MCC Prayer 2 (seeking “permanent 
injunctive relief prohibiting Bank of America from engaging in the wrongful conduct 
alleged herein, including but not limited to an order making the existing Preliminary 
Injunction permanent”). The prospective nature of the injunctive relief sought by 
Plaintiffs distinguishes this case from those in which courts dismissed requests for 
retrospective relief under Sonner. See, e.g., Kryzhanovskiy, 2022 WL 2345677, at *4 
(collecting cases).  
Accordingly, the MCC sufficiently pleaded that legal remedies would be 
inadequate to prevent future harm to Plaintiffs, and it was clear error to rule otherwise. 
B. 
Damages are not available for conduct that, although not 
“unlawful,” nonetheless violates the UCL because it is “unfair.” 
Plaintiffs’ UCL claim for relief in the MCC alleged the Bank’s challenged 
conduct, even if not found to be “unlawful,” would nonetheless be actionable under 
the UCL as “unfair” conduct. MCC ¶¶577–78. In dismissing Plaintiffs’ claim under 
the UCL’s “unfair” prong, the Court independently erred because the only relief 
available to remedy conduct that, although found to be not unlawful, is found to be 
“unfair,” are the equitable remedies provided by the UCL.  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1858     Page
11 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         7 
Claim; 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
California’s UCL broadly prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent 
business act or practice.” Bus. & Prof. Code §17200. “Each of these three adjectives 
captures ‘a separate and distinct theory of liability.’” Rubio v. Cap. One Bank, 613 
F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 
1127 (9th Cir. 2009)). The California Legislature intended the “unfair” prong to be 
“intentionally broad,” Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., 19 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1155–56 
(2018) (internal quotation marks omitted), to enable courts to address “the 
innumerable new schemes which the fertility of man’s invention would contrive,” Cel-
Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163, 181 (1999) (cleaned 
up). 
The UCL’s plain statutory language and the uniformly consistent California 
case law make clear that a defendant’s conduct may be actionable under the UCL as 
“unfair” “even if not specifically proscribed by some other law.” Id. at 180; see, e.g., 
Zuniga v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 14-cv-06471-MWF, 2014 WL 7156403, at *7 (C.D. 
Cal. Dec. 9, 2014) (declining to dismiss the plaintiff’s UCL “unfair” prong claim after 
rejecting Bank of America’s argument on a motion to dismiss that the entirety of the 
plaintiff’s “UCL claim fails because the [] underlying fraud claim fails”). Indeed, just 
earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a trial court’s judgment in favor of plaintiff 
Epic Games on its UCL claim against Apple under the “unfair” prong, 
notwithstanding the plaintiff’s failure to prove that Apple had violated any antitrust 
law. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 67 F.4th 946, 1000–02 (2023).  
Here, the MCC alleged the Bank’s challenged conduct is actionable under the 
UCL both because (1) it is “unlawful” to the extent it violates predicate statutes, 
regulations, or common law, and in the alternative, because (2) even if not unlawful, 
that conduct is “unfair” because it offends public policy and constitutes immoral, 
unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous activities that caused substantial injury to 
Plaintiffs and class members, and because the harm caused by the Bank’s conduct 
outweighs its potential benefits. See MCC ¶¶576–82. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1859     Page
12 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         8 
Claim; 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
In dismissing the UCL claim on the ground that Plaintiffs’ other claims for 
relief, if successful, would provide adequate legal remedies, the Court overlooked that 
Plaintiffs had sought the equitable remedies of restitution and injunctive relief under 
the UCL to remedy the Bank’s challenged practices on the theory that, even if the 
Court ultimately concluded that those practices were not unlawful, it could still find 
them to be actionable under the UCL as “unfair” business practices. MCC ¶¶577–78; 
see Dkt. 90 (MTD Opp.) at 40–43. In that circumstance, Plaintiffs would have 
no remedy at law (much less an adequate one) because no “law” would have been 
violated. See Zeiger v. WellPet LLC, 526 F.Supp.3d 652, 687 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“The 
core equitable rule is that simply having any remedy at law is not sufficient to 
foreclose equitable relief; instead, the remedy must be adequate”). Even when a 
plaintiff’s legal and equitable claims are “rooted in the same theory,” a plaintiff has 
no adequate remedy at law when the “elements of a [legal] claim require proof of 
conduct beyond that which must be shown to establish liability under the UCL ….” 
Elgindy v. AGA Serv. Co., No. 20-cv-06304-JST, 2021 WL 1176535, at *15 (N.D. Cal. 
Mar. 29, 2021); see also In re JUUL Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. 
Litig., 497 F.Supp.3d 552, 639 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (Sonner does not bar a UCL claim 
where the “allegations regarding unfair conduct are not [] coextensive with plaintiffs’ 
legal claims”).  
In Elgindy, the court held that Sonner did not bar plaintiffs’ claims seeking 
restitution under the fraudulent prong of the UCL and False Advertising Law because 
their common-law fraud claim, though based on the same theory and factual allegations 
as their UCL fraud claim, required proof of additional elements. See 2021 WL 1176535, 
at *15. Likewise here, Plaintiffs’ legal claims require proof of different elements than 
their claims under the UCL “unfair” prong, the latter of which only requires a showing 
that “‘the utility of the defendant’s conduct’” is outweighed by “‘the gravity of the harm 
to [Plaintiffs].’” Epic Games, 67 F.4th at 1000 (quoting Progressive W. Ins. Co. v. 
Superior Court, 135 Cal.App.4th 263, 285 (2005)) (explaining that the “balancing test” 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1860     Page
13 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         9 
Claim; 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
for unfairness applies in consumer cases, while the “tethering test” for unfairness applies 
in competitor cases).2 Sonner therefore does not preclude Plaintiffs from pursuing their 
UCL claims for restitution and injunctive relief under the “unfair” prong, and it was 
clear error for the Court to conclude otherwise. 
C. 
It was clear error to deny Plaintiffs leave to amend their UCL claim 
to allege inadequate legal remedies more specifically. 
One possible reading of the Court’s MTD Order (Dkt. 126) is that the Court 
dismissed Plaintiffs’ UCL claim with prejudice because the MCC did not expressly 
allege that Plaintiffs had no adequate remedy at law. If that were one of the grounds 
for dismissal, the Court’s failure to allow Plaintiffs leave to amend to include that 
allegation was also clear error. 
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 
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., 
 
2 The “tethering test” requires the alleged unfairness to be “tied to a ‘legislatively 
declared’ policy.” Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718, 736 (9th Cir. 
2007). Even if the tethering test were applicable here, Plaintiffs alleged facts showing 
that the Bank’s unfair conduct directly undermined the legislatively declared public 
policy of various laws. For example, Plaintiffs alleged that the Bank engaged in 
“unfair” conduct by “failing to provide reasonable or adequate customer service 
assistance to Plaintiffs and other Class Members who complained of fraud, despite 
representing to them that such assistance would be available ‘24/7,’ and despite the 
Bank’s awareness of rampant third-party fraud on EDD Debit Cards and Accounts,” 
and by “establishing ‘customer service’ procedures designed to frustrate and obstruct 
efforts by Plaintiffs and Class Members to file their fraud claims.” MCC ¶577(g)–(h), 
(o); see also FAMCC ¶577(g)–(h), (o). Even if such conduct does not itself violate 
EFTA, it contravenes the spirit and legislatively declared purpose of EFTA, “[t]he 
primary objective” of which “is the provision of individual consumer rights,” 15 
U.S.C. §1693(b), including the right to seek and timely receive reimbursement for 
unauthorized transactions on one’s account, 15 U.S.C. §1693f. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1861     Page
14 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         10 
Claim; 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
Guthrie v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., 561 F.Supp.3d 869, 875 (N.D. Cal. 2021). 
Indeed, this Court itself, when dismissing claims under Sonner, has often granted 
leave to amend. See, e.g., McCraner v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 21-cv-1246-LAB, 
2023 WL 2728719, at *8–9 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2023); Brand, 2023 WL 3225409, at 
*4, *9; McNamara v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 21-cv-1245-LAB, Dkt. 20 at 17–18 
(S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2022). Because Plaintiffs could 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. 
The FAMCC, which is now the operative complaint, expressly alleges that 
Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law—both with respect to their request for 
prospective injunctive relief, and for equitable restitution to remedy the Bank’s unfair 
business practices under the UCL. See FAMCC ¶285 (alleging that Plaintiffs’ “legal 
remedies are inadequate to prevent future harm from the Bank’s unlawful and unfair 
conduct that is the subject of this Complaint, and that is or would be ongoing but for 
the preliminary injunction the consolidated Yick plaintiffs obtained in June 2021”); 
FAMCC ¶575 (incorporating this allegation in the UCL claim for relief). If an express 
allegation is required, that statement, viewed in conjunction with the FAMCC’s 
substantive allegations, should be sufficient to allege inadequate legal remedies at this 
threshold pleading stage.  
If the Court were nonetheless to conclude that the FAMCC is still insufficient 
to satisfy Sonner even with the addition of this allegation at ¶285, Plaintiffs should be 
permitted to amend their UCL claim to address whatever concerns the Court expresses 
with respect to those allegations, so that Plaintiffs can attempt to cure whatever 
remaining defects the Court identifies. 
D. 
It was clear error to dismiss the UCL claim with prejudice, and 
thereby to preclude Plaintiffs from re-filing that claim in state court. 
Even if this Court were to conclude that it appropriately dismissed Plaintiffs’ 
UCL claim without leave to amend for failure to allege inadequate legal remedies, 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1862     Page
15 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         11 
Claim; 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
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) (emphasis added). 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., No. 20-cv-1859-CJC, 2022 WL 18228288, at *5 n.3 
(C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2022). Simply stated, if this Court lacks equitable jurisdiction over 
a particular state court claim, the required approach under Ninth Circuit law is to 
dismiss without prejudice, and thus to enable Plaintiffs to refile that claim in a state 
court that does have equitable jurisdiction.  
V. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court vacate 
its dismissal with prejudice of the UCL claim, and deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss 
the UCL claim, based on the following rulings:  
(1) Plaintiffs’ MCC sufficiently pled that their legal remedies are inadequate 
with respect to preventing future harm; and  
(2) Plaintiffs’ MCC sufficiently pled that their legal remedies are inadequate 
because no legal remedies exist for their UCL claims under the “unfair” prong.  
In the alternative, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court vacate its 
dismissal of the UCL claim with prejudice, based on the following rulings (presented 
here in Plaintiffs’ order of preference): 
(3) Plaintiffs were entitled to leave to amend their UCL allegations to plead 
inadequate legal remedies, and Plaintiffs’ now-operative complaint sufficiently pleads 
inadequate legal remedies (see, e.g., FAMCC ¶285); or 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1863     Page
16 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         12 
Claim; 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
(4) Plaintiffs were not entitled to leave to amend their UCL allegations to plead 
inadequate legal remedies, and Plaintiffs’ UCL claim is dismissed without prejudice 
to their ability to refile that claim in state court. 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
Dated:  August 7, 2023 
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 
 
 
By: /s/ Brian Danitz  
 
 
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT  
BRIAN DANITZ  
KARIN B. SWOPE  
ANDREW F. KIRTLEY 
 
 
Dated:  August 7, 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 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1864     Page
17 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         13 
Claim; 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 
 
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 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1865     Page
18 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         14 
Claim; 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
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 
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 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1866     Page
19 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         15 
Claim; 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
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 
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 
 
 
 
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 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1867     Page
20 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         16 
Claim; 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 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 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1868     Page
21 of 22

 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal with Prejudice of UCL         17 
Claim; 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, Brian Danitz, 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/ Brian Danitz 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         
BRIAN DANITZ 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 151-1     Filed 08/07/23     PageID.1869     Page
22 of 22

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.151.1.pdf

Size

864,138 bytes

SHA-256

47fd28e2408d1b3d1d709541f7424ce8f1061af52cedba3302a90be2b278623e

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.151.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)