Defendant Bank of America, N.A.s Supplemental Brief — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 271, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 271 · 2024-04-26 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

BANA’S SUPP. BR. ON MOT. FOR RECONSIDERATION 
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JAMES 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)
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  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-GPC-MSB
DEFENDANT BANK OF 
AMERICA, N.A.’S 
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON 
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 
RECONSIDERATION 
Ctrm:
2D – 2nd Floor
Judge:
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 271     Filed 04/26/24     PageID.2681     Page 1
of 5

BANA’S SUPP. BR. ON MOT. FOR RECONSIDERATION 
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
1
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
Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) submits this brief in response to 
the Court’s April 16, 2024 Order, Dkt. No. 264, regarding whether Plaintiffs’ claims 
under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) seeking a prospective 
injunction are still viable in light of the dissolution of the preliminary injunction 
issued in Yick v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 21-cv-1092 (the “PI Order”), and 
the conclusion of the contract between EDD and BANA.
As the Court’s Order suggests, the dissolution of the PI Order and BANA’s
exit from the EDD program render Plaintiffs’ UCL claims seeking a prospective 
injunction completely moot.  The only “prospective injunction” sought by Plaintiffs 
in connection with their UCL claims (or otherwise) in either the Master Consolidated 
Complaint (“MCC”), Dkt. No. 72, or in the First Amended Master Consolidated 
Complaint (“FAMCC”), Dkt. No. 136, is an order regarding BANA’s management 
of the EDD program that is substantively identical to the PI Order.  The MCC 
explicitly seeks “an order making the existing [PI Order] permanent.”  MCC at Prayer 
for Relief ¶ 2.  The FAMCC similarly states that the UCL claims are necessary 
because legal remedies are inadequate to protect Plaintiffs from “future harm . . . that 
is or would be ongoing but for the [PI Order].”  FAMCC ¶ 285.  Indeed, the 
FAMCC’s efforts to plead “facts” supporting Plaintiffs’ request for a prospective 
injunction reveal that Plaintiffs’ efforts to require BANA to do anything at all begin 
and end with the EDD accounts that will soon all be closed.  See FAMCC ¶ 584. 
As the Court noted, “Plaintiffs don’t oppose” BANA’s request to dissolve the 
PI Order because the requirements of the PI Order are no longer necessary and no 
longer serve any purpose in light of BANA’s forthcoming exit from the EDD 
program.  Dkt. No. 255, at 1.  The PI Order will be fully dissolved as of June 1, 2024, 
see id. at 2, at which time all of the EDD accounts that Plaintiffs complain about will 
have been closed for at least a month, obviating any need for a prospective injunction.
For all the reasons stated in BANA’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for 
Reconsideration, Dkt. No. 158, Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments for reconsideration 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 271     Filed 04/26/24     PageID.2682     Page 2
of 5

BANA’S SUPP. BR. ON MOT. FOR RECONSIDERATION 
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
2
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
of the dismissal of their UCL claims also fail.  The Court’s May 23, 2023 Order 
granting in part and denying in part BANA’s motion to dismiss the MCC, Dkt. No. 
126, correctly found that Plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged an entitlement to any 
type of equitable relief because they included neither a boilerplate allegation that 
legal remedies are inadequate nor facts to support such an allegation.  See Dkt. No. 
126, at 33.  Indeed, as BANA argued, the crux of Plaintiffs’ complaint is that they 
were deprived of money.  It is therefore no surprise that they cannot articulate (even 
now) why money is inadequate to make them whole.  The Court’s Order dismissing 
Plaintiffs’ UCL claims was correct last May, and it remains correct now.  
Dated:  April 26, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ 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 02110
Tel.: +1 617 960 3939
Fax: +1 617 449 6999
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 271     Filed 04/26/24     PageID.2683     Page 3
of 5

BANA’S SUPP. BR. ON MOT. FOR RECONSIDERATION 
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
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
JANICE P. BROWN (SBN 114433)
jbrown@myersnave.com
MATTHEW B. NAZARETH (SBN 278405)
mnazareth@myersnave.com
MEYERS NAVE
600 B Street, Suite 1650
San Diego, CA 92101
Attorneys for Defendant
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 271     Filed 04/26/24     PageID.2684     Page 4
of 5

BANA’S SUPP. BR. ON MOT. FOR RECONSIDERATION
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
4
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 April 26, 2024.  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:
April 26, 2024
s/ Matthew L. Riffee
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 271     Filed 04/26/24     PageID.2685     Page 5
of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.271.0.pdf

Size

103,806 bytes

SHA-256

c573f44a7799f671b55634de0bf0a2e8e6349d1ca4f74abddeff548d3f1a54d9

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.271.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)