Reply to Response to Motion re 225 Motion to Set Aside filed by Bank of America, N.A. — In re BofA Unemployment Litigation (Dkt. 250)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 250 · 2024-04-01 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

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
 
 
BANA’S REPLY AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE RULING ON ITS 
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
Case No.: 3:21-md-02992-LAB-
MSB
 
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 
SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH (pro hac vice) 
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice) 
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com 
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
1900 N Street 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 
 
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. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA, 
N.A.’S REPLY AND REQUEST FOR 
IMMEDIATE RULING ON ITS 
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 
DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY 
INJUNCTION 
This Document Relates to All Actions 
Ctrm: 
14A - 14th Floor 
Judge: 
Hon. Larry Alan Burns 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 250     Filed 04/01/24     PageID.2508     Page 1
of 3

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 
BANA’S REPLY AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE RULING ON ITS 
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
Case No.: 3:21-md-02992-LAB-
MSB
 
Given that Plaintiffs do not oppose BANA’s requested relief, BANA submits 
that its Proposed Order should be entered and the Preliminary Injunction should be 
dissolved for the reasons stated in its Motion (Dkt No. 225).1  Should the Court 
determine a hearing is necessary, BANA agrees to have this Motion heard and ruled 
upon by Judge Berg at the forthcoming April 1, 2024 Conference, or as soon as 
possible, to alleviate the need for any further briefing or argument.  BANA reserves 
its right to respond to Plaintiffs’ many mischaracterizations of fact (e.g., their 
unsupported assertion that EDD “fired” BANA) at a later time if Plaintiffs make such 
unsupported allegations again. 
 
1 BANA attempted for months to obtain Plaintiffs’ agreement to the requested 
dissolution of the preliminary injunction so as to not burden the Court or confuse EDD 
prepaid debit cardholders.  Plaintiffs repeatedly refused, without providing any basis 
for an opposition, thus forcing BANA to file its Motion as a disputed motion with a 
hearing date and waiting several weeks for Plaintiffs’ response (during which time 
notices required under the Preliminary Injunction are still being sent, confusingly, to 
cardholders whose cards have been closed).  Now that Plaintiffs have filed their 
response, they indicate that they actually do not oppose BANA’s requested relief 
(Dkt. No. 248 at 2)—and how could they, given that the termination of BANA’s EDD 
prepaid debit card program moots the need for expanded call center hours and creates 
significant confusion for any cardholder whose card has been closed but who 
continues to be subject to notices required under the Preliminary Injunction.  It is 
apparent from Plaintiffs’ response that the only reason they withheld their assent to a 
very reasonable ask—relief from an order that requires misleading and confusing 
notices to be sent to cardholders—is so that they would have an opportunity, in their 
“response,” to laud their accomplishments in obtaining the preliminary injunction in 
2021 so as to offer alleged and unripe justifications for a later petition for attorneys’ 
fees.  Such self-interested maneuverings are harmful to the interests of the cardholders 
whom Plaintiffs purport to represent, and call into question whether Plaintiffs and 
their counsel are properly suited to representing any class in this matter. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 250     Filed 04/01/24     PageID.2509     Page 2
of 3

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
 
2 
BANA’S REPLY AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE RULING ON ITS 
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
Case No.: 3:21-md-02992-LAB-
MSB
 
Dated: 
April 1, 2024 
Respectfully submitted, 
By:   Matthew L. Riffee________ 
 
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 
SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH (pro 
hac vice) 
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com 
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac 
vice) 
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
1900 N Street 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  02210 
Tel.: +1 617 960 3939 
Fax: +1 617 449 6999 
Attorneys for Defendant 
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 250     Filed 04/01/24     PageID.2510     Page 3
of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.250.0.pdf

Size

149,684 bytes

SHA-256

a5d7a3e3839b95c095e4e0c5b407a192d33f799613ba22aa1a0c40606341323f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.250.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)