Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant's Motion — In re BofA Unemployment Litigation (Dkt. 225-1)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 225-1 · 2024-04-29 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
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
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 MOTION TO 
DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY 
INJUNCTION 
Date:
April 29, 2024
Time:
11:30 AM
Ctrm:
14A - 14th Floor
Judge:
Hon. Larry Alan Burns
Filed/Lodged Concurrently with:
1.
Notice of Motion & Motion to 
Dissolve Preliminary Injunction
2. 
Declaration of Jennifer Lennon
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 225-1     Filed 02/29/24     PageID.2393     Page
1 of 16

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
- i -
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
 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
I.
Introduction..................................................................................................... 1
II.
Background ..................................................................................................... 1
A.
There Were Unprecedented Levels of Unemployment and Fraud 
During The COVID-19 Pandemic........................................................ 1
B.
The California EDD Prepaid Debit Card Program............................... 2
C.
The Yick Lawsuit and Preliminary Injunction. .................................... 2
D.
The Impending Closure of the BANA EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Program................................................................................................. 3
III.
Legal Standard................................................................................................. 4
IV.
Argument......................................................................................................... 5
A.
The Termination of the Program Renders the Ongoing 
Preliminary Injunction Requirements Both Unnecessary and 
Unworkable........................................................................................... 6
B.
The Equitable Factors that Judge Chhabria Found to Support the 
Preliminary Injunction in June 2021 No Longer Warrant 
Injunctive Relief.................................................................................... 8
1.
Plaintiffs Will Not Suffer Irreparable Harm if the 
Preliminary Injunction is Dissolved............................................8
2.
Balance of the Equities and Public Interest Favor 
Dissolution of the Preliminary Injunction...................................9
V.
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................10
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 225-1     Filed 02/29/24     PageID.2394     Page
2 of 16

- ii -
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
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
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES
Ewing v. Halbani,
No. 22-cv-00919-BAS-WVG, 2022 WL 4490166 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 
27, 2022)............................................................................................................... 9
Ferguson v. Southern Highlands Golf Club, LLC,
No. 2:05-cv-103-BES-PAL, 2007 WL 879681 (D. Nev. Mar. 21, 
2007).................................................................................................................5, 8
Index Newspapers, LLC v. Portland,
No. 3:20-cv-1035-SI, 2022 WL 72124 (D. Or. Jan. 7, 2022).............................. 8
Karnoski v. Trump,
926 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2019).............................................................................. 5
Kheriaty v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.,
No. 22-55001, 2022 WL 17175070 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2022) ............................. 3
Lo v. Cnty of Siskiyou,
No. 2:21-cv-00999-KJM-AC, 2022 WL 1505909 (E.D. Ca1. May 
12, 2022)............................................................................................................... 5
Salazar v. Buono,
559 U.S. 700 (2010) ............................................................................................. 5
Steinmeyer v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings,
No. 22-cv-01213 DMS (DDL), 2023 WL 2534621 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 
15, 2023)............................................................................................................... 9
Univ. of Haw. Prof’l Assembly v. Cayetano,
125 F. Supp. 2d 1237 (D. Haw. 2000) ................................................................. 4
Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council,
555 U.S. 7 (2008) ................................................................................................. 9
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 225-1     Filed 02/29/24     PageID.2395     Page
3 of 16

iii
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
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
Yick v. Bank of America, N.A.,
Case No. 21-cv-00376-VC (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 64 .......................................... 2
STATUTES
Federal CARES Act................................................................................................... 2
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1(a)............................................................ 8
New: Changes to Your Debit Card, California Employment 
Development Department (last visited Feb. 26, 2024) ........................................ 3
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 225-1     Filed 02/29/24     PageID.2396     Page
4 of 16

1
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
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
I.
INTRODUCTION
This litigation concerns prepaid debit cards issued by Bank of America, N.A. 
(“BANA”) and used by the California Employment Development Department 
(“EDD”) to distribute unemployment, disability, and Paid Family Leave benefits. A 
preliminary injunction was issued in a member case in June 2021, setting forth certain 
ongoing requirements for BANA’s servicing of the EDD prepaid debit cards. 
However, EDD has recently transitioned to a new vendor for the distribution of its 
benefits, and as a result, all of BANA’s EDD prepaid debit cards will be closed in 
the coming weeks and months. This significant change in circumstances renders the 
requirements of the preliminary injunction both unnecessary and unworkable (and, 
in some cases, harmful to EDD prepaid debit cardholders). Therefore, the preliminary 
injunction should be dissolved, as set forth below. 
Since January 4, 2024, Bank of America has repeatedly attempted to obtain 
Plaintiffs’ agreement to dissolve the preliminary injunction in light of EDD’s 
transition to a new vendor, and particularly the harmful impacts it could have on EDD 
prepaid debit cardholders during that transition.  Despite Bank of America’s best 
efforts, which included multiple meet and confers in which detailed explanations 
were provided concerning Bank of America’s plan for the transition of EDD prepaid 
debit card services to another vendor, and Bank of America sharing this motion and 
its accompanying declaration and exhibits with Plaintiffs in advance of filing, 
Plaintiffs informed Bank of America on the afternoon of this filing that they would 
not join in this motion and did not provide any explanation of their position. 
II.
BACKGROUND
A.
There Were Unprecedented Levels of Unemployment and Fraud 
During The COVID-19 Pandemic.
As a result of unprecedented levels of unemployment during the COVID-19 
pandemic, millions of Californians sought financial assistance in the form of 
unemployment benefits. Many of these individuals did not traditionally qualify for 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 225-1     Filed 02/29/24     PageID.2397     Page
5 of 16

2
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
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
state benefits, but became eligible for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (“PUA”) 
under the Federal CARES Act. See First Amended Master Consolidated Complaint 
(“FAMCC”), ECF No. 136, ¶¶ 75, 79. Unfortunately, PUA proved vulnerable to 
misuse and criminal activity, and the infusion of federal dollars that was intended to 
support California residents facing difficult times actually led to an explosion of 
fraudulent activity directed at EDD, the state agency responsible for administration 
of unemployment benefits.  See id. at ¶¶ 38, 76, 79.
B.
The California EDD Prepaid Debit Card Program.
Prior to the pandemic, EDD retained BANA to deliver unemployment,  
disability, and Paid Family Leave benefits to California residents, pursuant to an 
exclusive agreement between EDD and BANA (the “EDD Agreement”). See id. at 
¶¶ 38–39. Under the EDD Agreement, BANA issued prepaid debit cards (“BANA 
EDD prepaid debit cards”) to EDD-approved recipients who chose to receive their 
benefits through prepaid debit card rather than a check from EDD. See id. at ¶ 41. 
EDD distributed benefits by funding the BANA EDD prepaid debit cards. See id.
C.
The Yick Lawsuit and Preliminary Injunction. 
Plaintiffs filed a number of individual and class action proceedings against 
BANA, challenging BANA’s efforts to manage the unprecedented surge in 
unemployment fraud
that occurred during the pandemic following the 
implementation of the PUA. The surge in fraud was especially prevalent in California 
and in the EDD unemployment benefits program. Prior to the consolidation of these 
lawsuits before this Court in June 2021, Plaintiffs in one set of member cases sought 
a preliminary injunction, seeking changes to BANA’s claims handling and account 
management practices. Yick v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 21-cv-00376-VC 
(N.D. Cal.) (“Yick”), ECF No. 64. 
On June 2, 2021, Judge Chhabria in the Northern District of California issued 
a preliminary injunction based on language that the parties worked together to craft, 
which was “designed to protect the class members from future harm while 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 225-1     Filed 02/29/24     PageID.2398     Page
6 of 16

3
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
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
minimizing disruption to the defendant’s operations.” Yick, ECF No. 103 (June 2, 
2021) (“Preliminary Injunction”), at 1. The Preliminary Injunction required BANA 
to: (1) cease using the Claim Fraud Filter to investigate claims or freeze accounts, or 
otherwise denying or closing claims without an investigation and a written 
explanation of findings (id. at ¶¶ 1–3); (2) reopen claims previously denied by the 
Claim Fraud Filter and any other claim upon request (id. at ¶¶ 4–6); (3) make changes 
to certain call center hours, toll-free numbers, and call center staffing and training 
(id. at ¶¶ 8–10); and (4) provide certain mail and email notices to cardholders (id. at 
¶¶ 7, 8(c), 9(b), 11). In particular, the Preliminary Injunction required that BANA 
(i) operate its fraud and claims initiation call centers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 
and send (ii) monthly notices regarding call center hours and (iii) weekly notices with 
instructions for blocked cardholders to contact BANA to unblock their cards. Id. at 
¶¶ 8, 9.
D.
The Impending Closure of the BANA EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Program.
On December 1, 2023, EDD publicly announced it was changing banks for the 
distribution of unemployment and other benefits, and would begin distributing 
benefits on Money Network prepaid debit cards.1 EDD began notifying benefits 
recipients of this change in December 2023, and new Money Network cards were 
sent to benefits recipients beginning in late January 2024. Id. Beginning on February 
15, 2024, EDD stopped funding all BANA EDD prepaid debit cards and began 
distributing benefits exclusively via the Money Network EDD prepaid debit cards 
instead. Id. EDD reviewed and approved BANA’s plan for the transition and closure 
of accounts, including BANA’s notices to cardholders, the timeline and approach for 
1 New: Changes to Your Debit Card, California Employment Development 
Department,
https://edd.ca.gov/en/about_edd/the_edd_debit_card/#:~:text=
New%3A%20Changes%20to%20Your%20Debit%20Card&text=As%20of%20Fe
bruary%2015%2C%202024,active%20until%20April%2015%2C%202024
(last 
visited Feb. 26, 2024). See e.g., Kheriaty v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., No. 22-
55001, 2022 WL 17175070, at *1 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2022) (“Here, the district court 
properly took judicial notice of . . . the government websites; they are matters of 
public record made available by the government”).
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 225-1     Filed 02/29/24     PageID.2399     Page
7 of 16

4
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
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
account closure, and the issuance of checks for remaining funds. Declaration of 
Jennifer Lennon (“Lennon Decl.”) ¶ 11.
As a result of this transition, BANA EDD prepaid debit cards that were 
previously used to distribute EDD unemployment and other benefits either have been 
closed or will be closed in the coming months, and no BANA EDD prepaid debit
card or account will be able to be used after April 30, 2024. BANA EDD prepaid 
debit card accounts that have had no activity (whether deposits or other transactions) 
for 120 days have been closed or will be closed in the coming days, and a notice will 
be sent for any such account with a balance greater than zero, with instructions for 
requesting a check for that balance. Lennon Decl. ¶ 6. With respect to active BANA 
EDD prepaid debit card accounts (those with any type of activity in the past 120 
days), cardholders have been or will be sent a notice notifying them that they will be 
able to use their BANA EDD prepaid debit cards through April 15, 2024, and will be 
able to access their BANA EDD prepaid debit card account online through April 30, 
2024 to transfer any remaining funds; after April 30, those accounts will be closed. 
Id. at ¶ 7. As the notices explain, even after a BANA EDD prepaid debit card account 
is closed (whether it was active or inactive), former BANA EDD prepaid debit 
cardholders will still be able to obtain any remaining funds in their EDD prepaid 
debit card account by contacting BANA to request a check for their remaining funds 
until such time as state law provides for any unclaimed funds to be escheated to the 
state. Id at ¶ 8.
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
“[C]ourts have continuing jurisdiction to terminate, dissolve, vacate, or modify 
an injunction or an interlocutory order in the event that changed circumstances 
require it.” Univ. of Haw. Prof’l Assembly v. Cayetano, 125 F. Supp. 2d 1237, 1240 
(D. Haw. 2000) (citing United States v. Oregon, 769 F.2d 1410, 1416 (9th Cir. 
1985)). Courts also “must never ignore significant changes in the law or 
circumstances underlying an injunction lest the decree be turned into an ‘instrument 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 225-1     Filed 02/29/24     PageID.2400     Page
8 of 16

5
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
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
of wrong.’” Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700, 714–15 (2010) (quoting United States 
v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 115 (1932)). Therefore, courts regularly dissolve 
preliminary injunctions when changed circumstances undermine the basis for the 
interlocutory relief. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Southern Highlands Golf Club, LLC, No. 
2:05-cv-103-BES-PAL, 2007 WL 879681, at *2-3 (D. Nev. Mar. 21, 2007) (granting 
motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction that prohibited golf club from interfering 
with plaintiff’s use of club membership after plaintiff sold the property that gave him 
the right to that membership).
The legal test for dissolving an injunction requires the moving party to 
establish “that a significant change in facts or the law warrants revision or dissolution 
of the injunction.” Karnoski v. Trump, 926 F.3d 1180, 1198 (9th Cir. 2019). This test, 
however, “recognizes district courts’ ‘wide’ discretion to ensure their injunctions are 
just and to fit those injunctions to the evolving standards of each case,” and also 
acknowledges that “a district court may be ‘guided by’ the ‘traditional’ standard for 
injunctive relief . . . without applying the standard mechanically or as a checklist.” 
Lo v. Cnty of Siskiyou, No. 2:21-cv-00999-KJM-AC, 2022 WL 1505909, at *7 (E.D. 
Ca1. May 12, 2022) (citing Karnoski, 926 F.3d at 1199, 1202)).  
IV.
ARGUMENT
EDD’s transition to Money Network and the conclusion of BANA’s EDD 
prepaid debit card program is a significant change in facts that warrants dissolution 
of the Preliminary Injunction, as it renders the ongoing Preliminary Injunction 
requirements unnecessary, unworkable, and confusing to cardholders. In addition, 
the factors that Plaintiffs asserted and that Judge Chhabria found to support the 
Preliminary Injunction no longer exist once BANA’s EDD prepaid debit card 
program is concluded. Accordingly, the Preliminary Injunction should be dissolved 
in its entirety as of June 1, 2024, with any notice requirements to cease immediately 
for closed accounts and by April 5, 2024, at the latest. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 225-1     Filed 02/29/24     PageID.2401     Page
9 of 16

6
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
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
A.
The Termination of the Program Renders the Ongoing 
Preliminary Injunction Requirements Both Unnecessary and 
Unworkable.
Most of the requirements in the Preliminary Injunction required actions to be 
taken within a short period of time after it was issued in June 2021, such as the 
requirements that BANA reopen claims denied by the Claim Fraud Filter. 
Preliminary Injunction ¶¶ 4, 5. At this point, the only ongoing actions required by the 
Preliminary Injunction are: (1) the maintenance of 24/7 hours for the Claims and 
Fraud Call Centers, and (2) the sending of weekly and monthly notices to certain 
cardholders.2
Now that BANA’s EDD prepaid debit card program is set to conclude, these 
requirements make little sense. The last day that any EDD prepaid debit card can be 
used is April 15, 2024, and the last day for any cardholder to transfer funds by 
accessing their online account is April 30, 2024. Therefore, there can be no further 
transactions, authorized or unauthorized, after April 30, 2024. 
Accordingly, there is no need to maintain either a 24/7 Fraud Call Center or a 
24/7 Claims Initiation Call Center beyond May 31, 2024, one month after the last 
accounts are closed. The agents in the Fraud Call Center assist cardholders with 
resolving fraud blocks in order to regain access to their cards, which will no longer 
be necessary once the cards have all been closed. Lennon Decl. ¶ 10. The only role 
that the Fraud Call Center might play after April 30, 2024, is to verify the identities 
of cardholders with existing fraud blocks on their accounts or those who fail multiple 
levels of authentication when contacting the Main Servicing Call Center3 to request 
a check for their balance.  Id. at ¶¶ 9, 10. The agents in the Claims Initiation Call 
Center assist cardholders who wish to report unauthorized transactions on their 
account, but there will be no further transactions of any kind after April 30, 2024, 
and thus the volume of unauthorized transaction claims will decrease significantly. 
2 As for the requirement that BANA reopen any claim upon request, that was 
BANA’s practice even prior to the injunction.
3 The Main Servicing Call Center is not subject to the Preliminary Injunction.  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 225-1     Filed 02/29/24     PageID.2402     Page
10 of 16

7
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
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
Id. at ¶ 7. BANA will maintain call center availability to allow cardholders to request 
checks for their remaining balances or file unauthorized transaction claims, but there 
is no need for 24/7 Fraud or Claims Initiation Call Centers, as neither a check request 
(only a fraction of which will require assistance from the Fraud Call Center) nor the 
reporting of past unauthorized transactions on a closed account involve such urgency 
that middle-of-the-night calls must be accommodated. Therefore, it is reasonable to 
dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, including the 24/7 requirement for the Fraud and 
Claims Initiation Call Centers, as of June 1, 2024; by then, all accounts will have 
been closed for at least one month, and there will have been no card usage for at least 
45 days. 
There is also no need for any ongoing mailing requirements once accounts are 
closed. The monthly notice regarding the hours and contact information for the 
Claims Initiation Call Center (Preliminary Injunction ¶ 8(b)) is unnecessary, as there 
will be no further unauthorized transactions after an account is closed. And, in any 
event, these monthly notices have been sent for over two and a half years at this point.
The weekly notice to blocked cardholders about the hours and contact 
information for the Fraud Call Center (Preliminary Injunction ¶ 9(b)) is also 
unnecessary once an account is closed, particularly where many of these cardholders 
have been receiving these weekly notices for over two and a half years.  The 
continued mailing of these notices would also be inaccurate and confusing, as the 
notice informs cardholders that they can call the Fraud Call Center to regain access 
to their account, but once an account is closed the only action that a cardholder can 
take is to request a check or view their transaction history; they will not be able to 
use their cards or transfer their funds even if they successfully unblock the account. 
Lennon Decl. ¶¶ 6–8, 10. Thus, the notices should cease immediately for any account 
that is closed, and by April 5, 2024 at the latest (10 days before April 15, 2024, the 
last day on which any card can be used), so as to ensure that cardholders do not 
receive such notices after their account is closed.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 225-1     Filed 02/29/24     PageID.2403     Page
11 of 16

8
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
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
B.
The Equitable Factors that Judge Chhabria Found to Support the 
Preliminary Injunction in June 2021 No Longer Warrant 
Injunctive Relief.
The equitable factors that Judge Chhabria found to support the Preliminary 
Injunction in June 2021 no longer warrant injunctive relief in light of the conclusion 
of BANA’s EDD prepaid debit card program. See, e.g., Ferguson, 2007 WL 879681, 
at *2 (analyzing whether “the factual underpinning of the injunction” still exists 
because “[p]laintiff [was] no longer in a position to reap the benefits of the 
injunction”); Index Newspapers, LLC v. Portland, No. 3:20-cv-1035-SI, 2022 WL 
72124, at *8 (D. Or. Jan. 7, 2022) (making an indicative ruling pursuant to Federal 
Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1(a) dissolving preliminary injunction where “[t]he 
changed circumstances . . . show[ed] that . . . [p]laintiffs’ . . . harm [was] too 
speculative to show the requisite immediate irreparable injury to support injunctive 
relief”).  
1.
Plaintiffs Will Not Suffer Irreparable Harm if the 
Preliminary Injunction is Dissolved. 
Plaintiffs previously argued that the Preliminary Injunction was necessary to 
prevent irreparable harm because the actions they sought to enjoin were depriving 
them of access to their ongoing and previously paid benefits. See Yick, ECF No. 64 
at 17–18 (Apr. 1, 2021) (stating that the harm was Plaintiffs’ “struggle to cover basic 
needs like housing, food, utility bills, and other expenses necessary for survival and 
basic dignity”). This argument no longer stands. 
First, as of February 15, 2024, any ongoing and future EDD unemployment, 
disability, and Paid Family Leave benefits are being distributed via Money Network, 
not BANA. Second, Plaintiffs argued in 2021 that the Preliminary Injunction was 
necessary to prevent irreparable harm because they were unable to access previously-
deposited funds because BANA froze or blocked their accounts, Yick, ECF No. 64 at 
12, but account access cannot be restored for any cardholder once the accounts are 
all closed. The only way for BANA EDD prepaid debit cardholders to access any 
previously-deposited funds in their account is by calling BANA to obtain a check. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 225-1     Filed 02/29/24     PageID.2404     Page
12 of 16

9
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
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
Since Plaintiffs can no longer establish irreparable injury, there is no basis for any 
ongoing injunctive relief. Ewing v. Halbani, No. 22-cv-00919-BAS-WVG, 2022 WL 
4490166, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2022) (“Failure to establish a likelihood of 
irreparable harm sinks a movant’s request for pretrial injunctive relief”); Steinmeyer 
v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. 22-cv-01213 DMS (DDL), 2023 WL 2534621, 
at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023) ((“Although the Ninth Circuit evaluates the likelihood 
of success and the balance of equities on a ‘sliding scale,’ a federal court may not 
grant a TRO or preliminary injunction unless plaintiff shows he is likely to suffer 
irreparable harm”) (citing All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 
(9th Cir. 2011)).
2.
Balance of the Equities and Public Interest Favor 
Dissolution of the Preliminary Injunction.
The balance of equities and the public interest likewise do not warrant the 
continuation of the Preliminary Injunction. In analyzing the balance of equities, 
courts “‘must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on 
each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.’” Winter v. Nat’l 
Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (quoting Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of 
Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987)). 
Here, requiring 24/7 availability for two call centers is unnecessarily 
burdensome, with no corresponding benefit to Plaintiffs or any BANA EDD prepaid 
debit cardholders, given that there will be no active cards or accounts after April 30, 
2024 and any prospective need for the Fraud or Claims Initiation Call Centers will 
be much more limited. The ongoing mailing requirements are likewise burdensome, 
and will also likely be misleading, confusing, and harmful to cardholders because 
they would create confusion as to the status of the BANA EDD prepaid debit cards. 
EDD benefits recipients were sent a notice from EDD regarding the transition to 
Money Network, and have started receiving EDD benefits distributions on their new 
Money Network cards as of February 15, 2024. BANA EDD prepaid debit 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 225-1     Filed 02/29/24     PageID.2405     Page
13 of 16

10
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
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
cardholders also have been or will be sent notices from BANA about the closure of 
their BANA EDD prepaid debit cards. Lennon Decl. ¶¶ 6–7. Any continuing notices 
from BANA regarding their EDD prepaid debit card or account will cause confusion 
about whether the BANA EDD prepaid debit cards are still active, and whether 
customers should contact BANA or Money Network about their EDD benefits 
prepaid debit cards. Further, as noted above, the weekly notice regarding the Fraud 
Call Center is particularly confusing—and inaccurate—as it informs BANA EDD 
prepaid debit cardholders that they can regain access to their accounts by calling 
BANA, which is no longer the case after the accounts are closed. Sending confusing 
and contradictory notices to EDD prepaid debit cardholders is harmful and certainly 
not in the public interest, particularly as Plaintiffs have characterized the cardholder 
population as the “most vulnerable and financially at-risk customers.” FAMCC ¶¶ 2, 
69, 626. These mailings should therefore cease immediately for any closed accounts, 
and in all instances should cease by April 5, 2024 (10 days before the last date on 
which any EDD prepaid debit card can be used).
V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, BANA respectfully requests that the Preliminary 
Injunction be dissolved as follows: 
•
For accounts that are already closed, any ongoing notice requirements 
are immediately dissolved.
•
For all other accounts, any ongoing notice requirements are dissolved as 
of April 5, 2024.
•
All remaining provisions of the Preliminary Injunction to be dissolved 
as of June 1, 2024.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 225-1     Filed 02/29/24     PageID.2406     Page
14 of 16

11
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
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
Dated:  February 29, 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
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice)
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com
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
JUSTINE M. SHEEHAN (pro hac vice)
jsheehan@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
San Diego, CA 92101
Attorneys for Defendant
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 225-1     Filed 02/29/24     PageID.2407     Page
15 of 16

12
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
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
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 February 29, 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: 
February 29, 2024
s/ Matthew L. Riffee
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 225-1     Filed 02/29/24     PageID.2408     Page
16 of 16

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.225.1.pdf

Size

75,435 bytes

SHA-256

de59939ad989c883372883fdf3c7eec19c282b5c129020cd7aa60ea103da2cb1

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.225.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)