Memo of Points and Authorities — Bofa Ca Unemployment (Dkt. 146.1)

Summary

Bank of America, N.A.'s memorandum of points and authorities in support of its partial motion to dismiss the first amended master consolidated complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 21-MD-02992-LAB-MSB, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, filed 07/11/23 as Document 146-1 (36 pages) for an October 2, 2023 hearing. The case concerns California unemployment benefits paid on prepaid debit cards the bank issued under a contract with the Employment Development Department. The bank argues that claims the plaintiffs did not amend after the court's earlier order should be dismissed with prejudice. It also argues that the amendments of the freeze only plaintiffs still fail to state a claim under EFTA and that Jennifer Yick's amendments doom her contract claim. These are the bank's arguments.

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

PARTIAL MTD FAMCC                                                                         CASE NO. 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 
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 W. MCGARRY (admitted pro hac vice) 
JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
100 Northern Avenue 
Boston, MA  02210 
Tel.: +1 617 570 1000 
Fax: +1 617 523 1231 
 
YVONNE W. CHAN (admitted pro hac vice) 
YChan@jonesday.com 
JONES DAY 
100 High Street 
Boston, MA  02110 
Tel.: +1 617 960 3939 
Fax: +1 617 449 6999 
Attorneys for Defendant  
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. 
 
[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED IN SIGNATURE BLOCK] 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA  
SAN DIEGO DIVISION 
IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA 
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT 
BENEFITS LITIGATION 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case No. 21-MD-02992-LAB-MSB 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS 
AND AUTHORITIES IN 
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S 
PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS 
THE FIRST AMENDED MASTER 
CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 
12(b)(6) 
 
Date:        October 2, 2023 
Time:       11:30 a.m. PST 
Ctrm:       14A – 14th Floor 
Judge:      Hon. Larry Alan Burns 
 
Filed/Lodged Concurrently with: 
1. Notice of Motion and Partial 
Motion to Dismiss 
2. [Proposed] Order 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1797     Page
1 of 36

 
 
i 
 
 PARTIAL MTD FAMCC 
CASE NO. 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 
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 
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 
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 
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(s) 
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 2 
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 2 
I. 
THE DISMISSED CLAIMS THAT PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO 
AMEND SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. .......................... 2 
II. 
PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDMENTS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO CURE 
THE DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED IN THE MTD ORDER. ...................... 5 
A. 
THE “FREEZE ONLY” PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDMENTS 
STILL DO NOT STATE A CLAIM UNDER EFTA. ......................... 6 
B. 
PLAINTIFF JENNIFER YICK’S AMENDMENTS DOOM 
HER CONTRACT CLAIM. ................................................................. 8 
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 8 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 11 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1798     Page
2 of 36

 
 
ii 
 
 PARTIAL MTD FAMCC 
CASE NO. 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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
Beaver v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp., 
2021 WL 5042116 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2021) ....................................................... 3 
Gerson Inst. v. Huntington, 
2011 WL 883762 (S.D. Cal. March 11, 2011) ..................................................... 3 
Hardin v. Bank of Am., N.A., 
2022 WL 3568568 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 18, 2022) .................................................. 7 
Lazar v. City of Los Angeles, 
2010 WL 1583566 (9th Cir. April 21, 2010) ....................................................... 3 
Partanen v. W. U.S. Pipe Band Ass’n, 
2021 WL 5145246 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2021) ...................................................... 5 
Rupe v. Cate, 
2012 WL 259387 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2012) ......................................................... 3 
Sanders v. Laidlaw Educ. Srvcs., 
2006 WL 8441688 (C.D. Cal. April 12, 2006) .................................................... 3 
Watson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 
2016 WL 6581846 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016) ....................................................... 3 
Statutes 
15 U.S.C. § 1693f .................................................................................................. 6, 7 
Other Authorities 
12 C.F.R. § 1005.11 ........................................................................................... 6, 7, 8 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1799     Page
3 of 36

 
 
1 
 
 PARTIAL MTD FAMCC 
CASE NO. 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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
INTRODUCTION 
As the Court is aware, this multidistrict litigation involves the distribution of 
California state unemployment benefits through prepaid debit cards issued by Bank 
of America, N.A. (“BANA”) pursuant to a contract with the state agency responsible 
for administration of unemployment benefits, the California Employment 
Development Department (“EDD”).  The Court previously examined Plaintiffs’ 
lengthy Master Consolidated Complaint (Dkt. 72) thoroughly and in detail in 
response to BANA’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 84).  The Court’s Order Granting in 
Part and Denying in Part BANA’s Motion to Dismiss the Master Consolidated 
Complaint (“MTD Order”) (Dkt. 126) allowed some claims and theories to proceed, 
dismissed some with prejudice, and dismissed others with leave to amend, giving 
Plaintiffs very clear explanations of the deficiencies and equally clear instructions for 
amendment.  Nevertheless, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Master Consolidated 
Complaint (“FAMCC”) (Dkt. 136) continues to suffer from fatal deficiencies with 
respect to certain claims and theories.  Those claims and theories, which do not satisfy 
either the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6) or the standards articulated by the Court in 
the MTD Order, must now be dismissed with prejudice. 
BANA therefore files this partial motion to dismiss in order to address two 
principal defects in the FAMCC: 
 First, with respect to certain of the claims and legal theories that were 
dismissed with leave to amend, Plaintiffs chose not to exercise that leave, 
conceding (in multiple places) that they “are unable to amend this claim at 
this time.”  See e.g., FAMCC at p. 280, n.33.  Nevertheless, Plaintiffs 
continue to assert those claims in the FAMCC.  Because Plaintiffs concede 
that they cannot remedy the deficiencies identified by the Court, those 
claims and legal theories (including claims for violations of the California 
Consumer Privacy Act based on BANA’s handling of Plaintiffs’ personal 
information, the entirety of the California Customer Records Act claim, 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1800     Page
4 of 36

 
 
2 
 
 PARTIAL MTD FAMCC 
CASE NO. 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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
claims for negligence per se based on violations of the California Financial 
Information Privacy Act and California Customer Records Act, and nearly 
every Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim) should now be dismissed with 
prejudice.  
 Second, certain of Plaintiffs’ attempts at amendment fail.  Numerous 
individual Plaintiffs continue to fail to allege a “qualifying error” as 
required to state an EFTA claim.  And Plaintiff Yick’s amended allegation 
that she has been reimbursed by BANA dooms her contract claim for the 
reasons previously articulated by the Court.  BANA asks that the Court 
dismiss these claims with prejudice as well. 
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
Plaintiffs filed a number of individual and class actions against BANA in the 
federal district courts in California, challenging BANA’s efforts to manage the 
unprecedented surge in unemployment fraud prompted by the COVID-19 
pandemic.  In June 2021, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated 
the actions in this district.  (Dkt. 1).  The Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a Master 
Consolidated Complaint, which they did in August 2021.  (Dkt. 72).  BANA moved 
to dismiss the Master Consolidated Complaint (Dkt. 84), and on May 25, 2023, this 
Court issued the MTD Order which granted in part and denied in part BANA’s 
motion.  (Dkt. 126).  With respect to the parts of BANA’s motion that were granted, 
certain of Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice, and certain of Plaintiffs’ 
claims were dismissed with leave to amend.  See generally, MTD Order.  On June 
13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the FAMCC.  (Dkt. 136). 
ARGUMENT 
I. 
THE DISMISSED CLAIMS THAT PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO AMEND SHOULD BE 
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 
In the MTD Order, this Court dismissed with leave to amend certain claims 
entirely and certain claims with respect to some theories but not others.  See 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1801     Page
5 of 36

 
 
3 
 
 PARTIAL MTD FAMCC 
CASE NO. 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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
generally, MTD Order.  On a number of these claims and theories, Plaintiffs failed 
to exercise the leave granted by the MTD Order and conceded in the FAMCC that 
they “are unable to amend this claim at this time.”  See e.g., FAMCC at p. 280, n.33.  
Those claims and theories should now be dismissed with prejudice.1 
In this Circuit, it is undisputed that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate 
when leave to amend is granted but not exercised.  See Lazar v. City of Los Angeles, 
2010 WL 1583566, *1 (9th Cir. April 21, 2010) (“dismissal of the complaint with 
prejudice” appropriate where plaintiff “failed to amend the complaint after obtaining 
leave to do so”); Gerson Inst. v. Huntington, 2011 WL 883762, *4 (S.D. Cal. March 
11, 2011) (“Because [Plaintiff] has failed to amend these claims successfully, they 
will be dismissed without leave to amend.”); see also Beaver v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. 
Corp., 2021 WL 5042116, *2 n.3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2021) (“As Plaintiffs chose not 
to amend [certain claims that were dismissed with leave], the Court dismisses those 
causes of action without leave to amend.”).  This rule applies to claims that were 
dismissed entirely as well as to dismissals of particular theories.  See, e.g., Watson v. 
Bank of Am., N.A., 2016 WL 6581846, *4-9 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016) (dismissing 
claims based on some but not all legal theories with prejudice after plaintiff failed to 
amend after leave); Sanders v. Laidlaw Educ. Srvcs., 2006 WL 8441688, * 3 (C.D. 
Cal. April 12, 2006) (dismissing Title VII claim based on retaliation theory “with 
prejudice” for failure to amend that theory “in a meaningful manner” after being 
previously granted leave to do so).   
 
1 The FAMCC also continues to improperly assert claims that the MTD Order 
dismissed with prejudice, including claims for violations of the California Unfair 
Competition Law (Claim 4), contract claims on behalf of Plaintiffs who have been 
fully reimbursed (Claim 7), breach of implied contract claims (Claim 8), and claims 
for breach of contract as third-party beneficiaries of BANA’s contract with EDD 
(Claims 11 and 12).  These claims were fully and permanently dismissed by the MTD 
Order, are no longer part of this case, and require no response.  See Rupe v. Cate, 
2012 WL 259387, *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2012) (“When answering Plaintiffs’ Second 
Amended Complaint, Defendants do not need to respond to the [previously] 
dismissed claims . . . .”).  BANA will address Plaintiffs’ arguments for 
reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of their California Unfair Competition Law 
claims (Claim 4) if the Court allows Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File 
Motion for Reconsideration.  (Dkt. 141). 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1802     Page
6 of 36

 
 
4 
 
 PARTIAL MTD FAMCC 
CASE NO. 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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
The Court should follow this precedent here, and dismiss with prejudice the 
following claims and theories that Plaintiffs failed to amend: 
 Claims for violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act based on 
Plaintiffs’ theory regarding unsecure data collection and storage (Claim 2), 
as Plaintiffs concede that they “are unable to amend this claim at this time,” 
(FAMCC at p. 276, n.32);  
 Claims for violation of the California Customer Records Act (Claim 3), as 
Plaintiffs concede they “are unable to amend this claim at this time,” 
(FAMCC at p. 280, n.33); and  
 Claims for negligence per se based on violations of the California Financial 
Information Privacy Act and California Customer Records Act (Claim 5), 
which Plaintiffs concede they “are unable at this time to amend based on 
violations of the CFIPA or the CCRA,” (FAMCC at p. 288, n.35). 
Plaintiffs also concede that they cannot amend their allegations to state a breach 
of contract claim (Claim 7) for those Plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed in the 
MTD Order.  See FAMCC at p. 297, n.36.  Plaintiffs brought breach of contract 
claims against BANA for alleged breach of the Cardholder Agreement based on three 
theories:  first, Plaintiffs alleged that BANA breached the claim investigation and 
reimbursement provisions contained in Section 9 and Section 11 of the Cardholder 
Agreement; second, Plaintiffs alleged that BANA breached the provisions in Section 
2 of the Cardholder Agreement that allow BANA to freeze accounts on suspicion of 
fraud; and third, Plaintiffs alleged that BANA breached provisions in Section 2 of 
the Cardholder Agreement that require BANA to fund accounts at EDD’s instruction. 
 On Plaintiffs’ first theory, the Section 9 and 11 contract claims brought by 
Plaintiffs who alleged their claims were reimbursed by BANA were 
dismissed with prejudice.  See MTD Order at 51.2  The remaining Section 9 
 
2 As noted supra note 1, Plaintiffs continue to assert the contract claims of fully-
reimbursed Plaintiffs despite their dismissal with prejudice. The FAMCC’s 
allegations that certain Plaintiffs who were fully credited did not receive interest (see, 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1803     Page
7 of 36

 
 
5 
 
 PARTIAL MTD FAMCC 
CASE NO. 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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
and 11 claims were dismissed with leave to amend as to all Plaintiffs except 
for Plaintiffs Yick, Smith, Burns, and Horath, whose Section 9 and 11 
contract claims were allowed to proceed.  MTD Order at 52.  (However, 
Plaintiff Yick’s amendments regarding reimbursement doom her contract 
claim, as explained infra at 8.) 
 On Plaintiffs’ second theory, the Section 2 contract claims based on account 
freezes were dismissed with leave to amend as to all Plaintiffs.  MTD Order 
at 53, 54. 
 On Plaintiffs’ third theory, the Section 2 contract claims based on EDD 
instructions were also dismissed with leave to amend as to all Plaintiffs.  Id.   
As to all the contract claims that were dismissed with leave to amend (under 
all three theories), the FAMCC concedes that “Plaintiffs are unable to amend those 
claims at this time.”  FAMCC at 302, n.36.  Therefore, the contract claims as to all 
Plaintiffs, except for the Section 9 and 11 theories for Plaintiffs Smith, Burns and 
Horath, should now be dismissed with prejudice (to be clear, Plaintiffs Smith, Burns 
and Horath’s contract claims under the second and third theories, based on alleged 
violations of Section 2, should also be dismissed with prejudice).3 
II. 
PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDMENTS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO CURE THE DEFICIENCIES 
IDENTIFIED IN THE MTD ORDER. 
As for the dismissed claims that Plaintiffs attempted to amend, certain of those 
attempts still fail.  A number of individual Plaintiffs continue to fail to plead a 
“qualifying error” as required to state an EFTA claim.  And Plaintiff Yick’s 
 
e.g., FAMCC at ¶¶ 159, 169) do not save these contract claims from dismissal 
because (i) the Cardholder Agreement does not provide for interest, and (ii) those 
Plaintiffs whose contract claims were previously dismissed on the basis of 
reimbursement were dismissed with prejudice, and cannot be resurrected through 
amendment.  Partanen v. W. U.S. Pipe Band Ass’n, 2021 WL 5145246, at *14  (E.D. 
Cal., Nov. 4, 2021). 
3 A list of the Plaintiffs whose Section 9 and 11 contract claims in the FAMCC are 
subject to dismissal are identified in Column E of Appendix A filed herewith (all 
Plaintiffs’ Section 2 contract claims should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to 
amend those allegations).   
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1804     Page
8 of 36

 
 
6 
 
 PARTIAL MTD FAMCC 
CASE NO. 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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
amendment to concede that she has been reimbursed by BANA dooms her contract 
claim.  These claims also should be dismissed with prejudice. 
A. 
The “Freeze Only” Plaintiffs’ Amendments Still Do Not State A 
Claim Under EFTA. 
First, individual Plaintiffs who continue to allege only account freezes or 
restrictions do not state a claim under EFTA.  As the Court held, “[n]either EFTA 
nor Reg E lists account freezes as a qualifying error.”  MTD Order at 15; see also 15 
U.S.C. § 1693f(f); 12 C.F.R. § 1005.11(a)(1).  Plaintiffs conceded as much, but 
argued that a request for “additional information” is among the “qualifying errors” 
specified in EFTA and its implementing Regulation, Regulation E.  See MTD Order 
at 15.  The Court dismissed the EFTA claims of those individual Plaintiffs “who 
reported account freezes only,” subject to their ability to plead that they made 
information requests to BANA that were “qualifying error[s]” under the statute.  
MTD Order at 15-16.  In the FAMCC, certain individual Plaintiffs amended their 
freeze-only allegations to provide additional information about their account freezes, 
recharacterize their account freezes as “restricted access” to their accounts, and allege 
that they asked BANA for “additional information regarding the restriction.”  See, 
e.g., Plaintiff Flores, FAMCC ¶ 357.4 
These allegations still fail to state a claim under EFTA.  Both EFTA and 
Regulation E contain provisions defining qualifying errors for purposes of the statute.  
See 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(f) (EFTA definition of “acts constituting error”); 12 C.F.R. § 
1005.11(a) (Reg E “[d]efinition of error”).  As the Court recognized in the MTD 
Order (at 15-16), both definitions make clear that an information request must 
concern an electronic fund transfer to qualify as an error under the statute: 
 EFTA’s information request provision states that a qualifying “error” 
includes “a consumer’s request for additional information or clarification 
 
4 A list of the Plaintiffs whose EFTA claims in the FAMCC still fail to allege a 
qualifying error and therefore are subject to dismissal are identified in Column D of 
Appendix A filed herewith.   
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1805     Page
9 of 36

 
 
7 
 
 PARTIAL MTD FAMCC 
CASE NO. 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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
concerning an electronic fund transfer,” (15 U.S.C. § 1693f(f)(6) 
(emphasis added)); and  
 Regulation E’s information request provision similarly states that a 
qualifying “error” includes “[t]he consumer’s request for . . . additional 
information or clarification concerning an electronic fund transfer, 
including a request the customer makes to determine whether an error exists 
[as defined by] this section,” (12 C.F.R. § 1005.11(a)(1)(vii) (emphasis 
added)). 
In Hardin v. Bank of Am., N.A., another case regarding BANA’s handling of 
pandemic fraud claims, the court clarified the narrow scope of the qualifying error 
definitions, dismissing the plaintiffs’ EFTA claims even though they had requested 
information from BANA about their accounts because the requests did not 
specifically concern an electronic fund transfer.  See Hardin v. Bank of Am., N.A., 
2022 WL 3568568, *3 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 18, 2022).  As the court explained, “requests 
for additional information or clarification apply only to requests ‘concerning an 
electronic fund transfer.’”  Id. (emphasis added). The court found that because 
“[n]either [plaintiff] requested information or clarification about an electronic funds 
transfer,” their allegations about requests for additional information from BANA 
were not qualifying errors and thus did not state a claim under EFTA.  Id. (emphasis 
added). 
The freeze- or restricted access-only Plaintiffs’ allegations in the FAMCC, 
even as amended, fail for the same reason.  These Plaintiffs allege only that they 
called BANA to request, for example, “all the information [BANA] relied upon 
which caused the freeze of [the] account,” (Plaintiff Blacksands, FAMCC ¶ 309) or 
“additional information regarding the restriction” (Plaintiff Flores, FAMCC ¶ 357).  
None of them allege that their calls to BANA regarding their frozen or restricted 
accounts were “request[s] for additional information or clarification concerning an 
electronic fund transfer” as required by EFTA.  15 U.S.C. § 1693f(f)(6) (emphasis 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1806     Page
10 of 36

 
 
8 
 
 PARTIAL MTD FAMCC 
CASE NO. 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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
added); see also 12 C.F.R. § 1005.11(a)(1)(vii).  None of these Plaintiffs have 
identified the electronic fund transfer that they sought information or clarification 
about.  In fact, these Plaintiffs make no allegations regarding any electronic fund 
transfers on their accounts at all; rather, their allegations are that they sought 
information about freezes or restrictions that prevented transfers on their accounts.  
Their EFTA claims therefore do not allege a “qualifying error,” and should be 
dismissed with prejudice. 
B. 
Plaintiff Jennifer Yick’s Amendments Doom Her Contract Claim. 
Second, Plaintiff Yick’s Section 9 and 11 contract claim should now be 
dismissed, with prejudice, because Yick amended her allegations to state that her 
unauthorized transaction claims have been reimbursed in full by BANA.  FAMCC ¶ 
126.  Under the MTD Order, “any Plaintiff that has been completely reimbursed can’t 
recover contract damages, and can’t state a claim for breach of contract.”  MTD Order 
at p. 51.  Thus, Yick’s Section 9 and 11 contract claim, as amended, must be 
dismissed with prejudice (as noted above, Yick’s contract claims based on both 
theories of alleged violations of Section 2 were dismissed with leave to amend by the 
MTD Order, at 53-54, and should now be dismissed with prejudice because Yick 
failed to amend those allegations, see supra 5-6).5   
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, BANA respectfully requests that the Court dismiss 
the following claims and theories with prejudice:   
 EFTA claims for those Plaintiffs who allege only an account freeze or 
restriction, as identified in Column D of Appendix A (Claim 1); 
 
5 Other Plaintiffs also amended their allegations to reflect either that they have been 
reimbursed by BANA (e.g., Plaintiff Zoelle, FAMCC ¶ 249) or that they cannot plead 
that they have not been reimbursed by BANA (e.g., Plaintiff Hicks, FAMCC ¶  260, 
n. 17, and Plaintiff Blankenship, FAMCC ¶ 284, both conceding they do not know 
whether they were reimbursed).  These Plaintiffs’ contract claims were already 
dismissed with leave to amend, and should now be dismissed with prejudice, as 
explained supra at 5-6, due to Plaintiffs’ inability to amend.  Their amendments 
regarding reimbursement provide yet another reason to dismiss their contract claims 
with prejudice. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1807     Page
11 of 36

 
 
9 
 
 PARTIAL MTD FAMCC 
CASE NO. 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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
 All Plaintiffs’ claims for violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act 
based on Plaintiffs’ unsecure data collection and storage theory (Claim 2); 
 All Plaintiffs’ claims for violation of the California Customer Records Act 
(Claim 3); 
 All Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence per se based on violations of the 
California Information Privacy Act and California Customer Records Act 
(Claim 5); and 
 All breach of contract claims for all Plaintiffs except for the Section 9 and 
11 claims for Plaintiffs Smith, Burns and Horath, as identified in Column 
E of Appendix A (Claim 7). 
 
Dated:   July 11, 2023 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
By: /s/ James W. McGarry_________ 
 
  
JAMES W. MCGARRY (pro hac vice) 
JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
100 Northern Avenue 
Boston, MA  02210 
Tel.: +1 617 570 1000 
Fax: +1 617 523 1231 
 
THOMAS M. HEFFERON (pro hac vice) 
THefferon@goodwinlaw.com 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
1900 N St. NW  
Washington, DC 20036  
Tel: +1 202 346 4000  
Fax: +1 202 346 4444 
 
YVONNE W. CHAN (pro hac vice) 
YChan@jonesday.com 
JONES DAY 
100 High Street 
Boston, MA  02110 
Tel.: +1 617 960 3939 
Fax: +1 617 449 6999 
 
JANICE P. BROWN (SBN 114433) 
jbrown@myersnave.com 
MATTHEW B. NAZARETH (SBN 
278405) 
mnazareth@myersnave.com 
MEYERS NAVE 
600 B Street, Suite 1650 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1808     Page
12 of 36

 
 
10 
 
 PARTIAL MTD FAMCC 
CASE NO. 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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
San Diego, CA 92101 
Attorneys for Defendant 
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1809     Page
13 of 36

 
 
11 
 
 PARTIAL MTD FAMCC 
CASE NO. 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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the 
court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California by 
using the CM/ECF system on July 11, 2023.  I further certify that all participants in 
the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the 
CM/ECF system. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and 
correct. 
 
 
 
Executed: 
July 11, 2023 
 
/s/ James W. McGarry 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1810     Page
14 of 36

Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1811     Page
15 of 36

Appendix A
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Abarr
Paul
¶ 286
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Abbot
Kobe
¶ 287
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Adams
Michael
¶ 289
N/A
Aders
Jordan
¶ 288
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Aguirre
Jonathan
¶ 290
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Allison
Christopher
¶ 291
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Alvarez
Kevin
¶ 292
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Alvarez
Courtney
¶ 293
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Alvarez
Rosa
¶ 294
N/A
Anderson
David
¶ 295
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Anderson
Rebekah
¶ 296
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Andrade
Amanda
¶ 297
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Anistik
Sheila
¶ 299
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Arnoldstarr
Robert
¶ 300
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Claim
Plaintiff
1
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1812     Page
16 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Arrey
Vanessa
¶ 301
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Auburn
Ursula
¶¶ 254–57
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order
Ayala
Christal
¶ 302
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Back
Celina
¶ 303
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Baker
Cindy
¶¶ 250–53
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order
Barnettte
Mark
¶ 304
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Beckham
Douglas
¶ 305
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Beehler
Sky
¶ 306
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Bennett
Amber
¶ 307
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Berlt
Forrest
¶ 308
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order
Blacksands
Stone
¶ 309
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Blankenship
Claire
¶¶ 279–84
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their 
contract claim.
In the alternative,  they 
cannot allege that they 
have not been 
reimbursed.  
2
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1813     Page
17 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Bommel
Dean
¶ 310
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Brady
Nicholas
¶ 311
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Brooks
James
¶ 312
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Brotman
Adam
¶ 313
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order
Bruno
James
¶ 314
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order
Burns
Beth
¶ 315
N/A
N/A
Burrow
Dwight
¶ 316
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Bynum
Mario
¶ 317
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Byrn
Daniel
¶ 318
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Cajas
Clara
¶¶ 195–99
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order
Calzado
Joseph
¶ 319
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Camberos
Stacey
¶ 320
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Cardenas Cortez
Victor
¶ 333
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Carpenter
Kimberly
¶ 321
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order
Castillo
Patricia
¶ 322
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order
3
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1814     Page
18 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Caton
Richard
¶ 323
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Chapple
Susan
¶ 324
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Chase
Randy
¶ 325
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Chavez
Angela
¶ 326
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Chavez
Phillip
¶ 327
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Chong
Kuang Ting
¶¶ 261–67
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order
Cochran
Tiffany
¶ 328
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Collins
LaMar
¶ 329
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Contreras
Jennifer
¶ 330
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Contreras
Jose
¶ 331
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Corella
Donmonique
¶ 332
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Cortez-Gonzalez
Crystal
¶ 334
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
D’Agostino Criado
Teresa
¶ 335
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
4
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1815     Page
19 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Dale
Heather
¶ 336
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
De Hoyos
Marcus
¶ 400
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
De Los Angeles, Sr.
Samuel
¶ 298
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
de Vera
Michell
¶ 337
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Deasy
Timothy
¶ 338
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Delariva
Luis
¶ 339
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Delgado
Delbert
¶ 340
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Delgado
Selena
¶ 341
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Dirickson
Nickolaus
¶ 342
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Dones
Lorina
¶ 343
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Douglas
Anthony
¶ 344
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Douglass
Benjamin
¶ 345
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Duey
Kayli
¶ 346
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
5
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1816     Page
20 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Eason
Roxanne
¶ 347
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Echeverria
Peter
¶ 348
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Edwards
Linda
¶ 349
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Escalante
Maritza
¶ 350
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Espalin
Marley
¶ 351
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Estrada
Juan
¶ 352
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Farina
Dawn
¶ 353
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Ferraro
Cody
¶ 354
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Flores
Jacob
¶ 355
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Flores
Arnold
¶ 356
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Flores
Stephanie
¶ 357
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Franks
Anthony
¶ 358
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Friday
Meredith
¶ 359
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
6
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1817     Page
21 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Friend
Joseph
¶ 360
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Gage
Latisha
¶ 362
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Galicia
Abigail
¶ 361
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Garcia
Monica
¶ 363
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Gaynor
Glynda
¶ 364
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
George
Laquitta
¶ 365
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Giddens
Elizabeth
¶ 366
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Glassflowers
Seante
¶ 367
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Gonzalez
Angela
¶ 368
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Gonzalez
Barton
¶ 369
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Gonzalez
Lizet
¶ 370
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Graham
Lainie Ann
¶ 371
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Grant
Audrey
¶ 372
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
7
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1818     Page
22 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Gray
Willie
¶ 373
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Grimes
Sean
¶ 374
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Guadalajara
Jeffrey
¶ 375
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Guirguis
Noah
¶ 376
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Gutcher
Lyndsey
¶ 377
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Gutierrez
Andres
¶ 378
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Gutierrez
Angelica
¶ 379
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Gutierrez
Crystal
¶ 380
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Hakopian
Shant
¶ 381
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Hanes
James
¶ 382
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Haney
Micah
¶ 383
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Hanna
Preston
¶ 384
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Harden
Rebecca
¶ 385
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
8
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1819     Page
23 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Harper
Johnny
¶ 386
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Harris
Ivan
¶ 387
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Harris
Markee
¶ 388
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Hart
Steven
¶ 389
N/A
Hassanshahi
Bahram
¶ 390
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Hayden
Kaytricia
¶ 391
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Heinz
Gretchen
¶ 392
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Hernandez
Ronnie
¶ 393
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim.
Hernandez
Ruben
¶ 394
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Hernandez
Vanessa
¶ 395
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim.
Hicks
Julie
¶¶ 258–60
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their 
contract claim.
In the alternative,  they 
cannot allege that they 
have not been 
reimbursed.  
Hollingsworth
Anthony
¶ 396
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
9
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1820     Page
24 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Holloway
Lindsie
¶ 397
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Horath
Crystal
¶ 398
N/A
N/A
Howze
Terrance
¶ 399
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Hutchins
Sharonna
¶ 401
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Huynh
Quoc
¶ 402
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Idemudia
John
¶ 403
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Isles
Juanita
¶ 404
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Jabara
Derrick
¶ 405
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Jackson
Shreel
¶ 406
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Jaurigue, Jr.
Robert
¶ 407
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Jeff
Anthony
¶ 408
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Johnson
Evett
¶ 409
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Johnson
Lester
¶ 410
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Johnson
Terrell
¶ 411
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
10
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1821     Page
25 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Jones
Brian
¶ 412
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Jones
Victoria
¶ 413
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Karam
Alan
¶¶ 203–15
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Kelly
Olivia
¶ 414
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Kessler
Erick
¶ 415
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Knight
Deandre
¶ 416
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Koole
Candace
¶¶ 136–43
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Lawson
Corey
¶ 417
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Laxton
Sabrina
¶ 418
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Lind
Tonya
¶ 419
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Littles
Limmie
¶ 420
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Lopez
Ronda
¶ 421
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Loredo
Ernie
¶ 422
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
11
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1822     Page
26 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Madrid
Raina
¶ 423
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Madrid
Mario
¶ 424
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Magallan
Joseph
¶ 425
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Main
Joseph
¶ 426
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Martinez
Danela
¶ 427
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Mathews
Rosemary
¶¶ 160–70
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Matson, Jr.
Russell
¶ 428
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Matthews
Vernon
¶ 429
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Maurer
Janelle
¶ 430
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
McCafferty
Christina
¶ 431
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
McCann
Brenda
¶ 432
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
McClure
Lindsay
¶¶ 187–91
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
McCrary
Michael
¶ 434
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
12
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1823     Page
27 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Meza
Jennifer
¶ 433
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Middleton
Travis
¶ 435
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Miller
Linda
¶ 436
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Moon
Azuri
¶¶ 144–51
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Moore
Stephanie
¶¶ 268–73
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Moore
Lavell
¶ 437
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Morales
Sara
¶ 438
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Morales
Albert
¶ 439
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Morgan
Sharise
¶ 440
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Morrell
Tiffiany
¶ 441
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Morris
Heather
¶ 442
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Mouck
Janette
¶ 443
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Murphy
Robert
¶ 444
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
13
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1824     Page
28 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Murphy
Sarah
¶ 445
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Nicholson
Kimberly
¶ 446
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Ojeda
Lelanya
¶ 447
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Oosthuizen
Roland
¶¶ 152–59
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Ortiz, Jr.
Frank
¶ 448
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim.
Owen
Kelly
¶ 449
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim.
Owensby
Mark
¶ 450
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Paningbatan
Flouzel
¶ 451
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Payton
Laura
¶ 452
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Pena, Jr.
Ismael
¶ 453
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Perez
Luis
¶¶ 216–24
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Perez
Ann
¶ 454
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Perez
Paul
¶ 455
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
14
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1825     Page
29 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Perkins
Kenyon
¶ 456
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Petrova
Zinaida
¶¶ 274–78
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Piette
Melanie
¶ 457
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Pita
Ryan
¶ 458
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Pitts
Darnell
¶ 459
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Pitts
Vannessa
¶ 460
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Pointer
Misty
¶ 461
Dismissed with prejudice 
by MTD Order.
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Pomeroy
Tina
¶ 462
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Posten
Randle
¶ 463
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Pummill
Joshua
¶ 464
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Quesada
Andrea
¶ 465
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Quiroz
Maurilio
¶ 466
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Raiff
Mykela
¶ 467
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
15
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1826     Page
30 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Ray
Moaney
¶ 468
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Reed
Kawana
¶ 469
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Rima-Fleurima
Nehemiah
¶ 470
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Ritchey
Rhonda
¶ 471
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Rivera
Vanessa
¶¶ 127–35
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Rivera
Israel
¶ 472
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Roa
Miguel
¶ 473
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Robinson
Carmen
¶ 474
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Robinson
Stanley
¶ 475
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Robles
Joe
¶ 476
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Rodriguez
Carlos
¶¶ 171–76
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Rodriguez
Catrina
¶ 477
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Rodriguez Romo
Jose
¶ 479
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
16
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1827     Page
31 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Rojas de Charolet
Elana Martina
¶ 478
N/A
Royston
Melissa
¶ 480
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Salaz
Raylene
¶ 481
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Salazar
Miguel
¶ 482
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Saldate
Frankie
¶ 483
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Schmidt
Michael
¶ 484
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Schmitz
Timothy
¶ 485
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Serrato
Melissa
¶ 486
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim.
Sevilla
Arminda
¶ 487
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim.
Silva
Jenna
¶ 488
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Simpson
Jessica
¶ 489
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Sims II
Michael
¶ 490
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Smith
Stephanie
¶¶ 200–02
N/A
N/A
Smith
Jonathan
¶¶ 229–36
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
17
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1828     Page
32 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Smith
Denise
¶ 491
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Smith
Nicole
¶ 492
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Sparks
Jonathan
¶ 493
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Stanfill
Amy
¶ 494
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Stephens
Lucas
¶ 495
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Stidham
Crystal
¶ 496
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Talia
Danny
¶ 497
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Tamayo
Cesar
¶ 498
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Taylor
Michelle
¶ 499
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Taylor
Tonya
¶ 500
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Tonna
Nicholas
¶ 501
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Trammel
Tasha
¶ 502
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Tressler
Jimmy
¶ 503
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
18
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1829     Page
33 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Turnbull
Jason
¶ 504
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Turner
Thomas
¶ 505
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Valadez
Reina
¶ 506
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Valenzuela
Juan
¶ 507
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Vasquez
David
¶ 508
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Verdun
Jessie
¶ 509
N/A
Villagomez
Manuel
¶ 510
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Viramontes
Luis
¶ 511
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Walker
Norman
¶ 512
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Wallace
Jason
¶ 513
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Wiggins
Brian
¶¶ 225–28
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Wilburn
Cameren
¶ 514
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Wilds
Denise
¶ 515
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Wilkins
Terrence
¶ 516
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
19
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1830     Page
34 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Williams
Zacharia
¶ 517
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim.
Williams
Tyrisha
¶ 518
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Williams
Willie
¶ 519
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Williamson
Latasha
¶ 520
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Willis
Leanna
¶ 521
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Willrich
J. Michael
¶¶ 177–86
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Wilson
Robert L.
¶¶ 192–94
N/A
Dismissed with 
prejudice by MTD Order.
Wise
Lacey
¶ 522
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Wood
Colton
¶ 523
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Yeats
Matthew
¶ 524
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Yick
Jennifer
¶¶ 114–26
N/A
Alleged they have been 
reimbursed. 
Young
Glen
¶ 525
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Yuan
Alex
¶¶ 237–45
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
20
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1831     Page
35 of 36

Last Name
First Name
FAMCC 
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of 
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1) 
Reason for Dismissal of 
Section 9 and 11 
Contract Claim
(Claim 7) 
Claim
Plaintiff
Zettlemoyer
Christopher
¶ 526
Failed to allege an Error 
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim. 
Zoelle
Jory
¶¶ 246–49
N/A
Failed to exercise leave 
and amend their 
contract claim.
In the alternative,  they 
alleged they have been 
reimbursed. 
21
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 146-1     Filed 07/11/23     PageID.1832     Page
36 of 36

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.146.1.pdf

Size

1,441,551 bytes

SHA-256

f95e40e33a56763cbd68d1bc3087b29cd9056c0663c919a8c191a61d531c5a5f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.146.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)