Order Granting 225 Motion to Dissolve — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 255, 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. 255 · 2024-04-30 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
21-md-2992-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
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
IN RE BANK OF AMERICA 
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT 
BENEFITS LITIGATION 
 
Case No.: 21-md-2992-LAB-MSB 
 
ORDER: 
 
 
(1) GRANTING MOTION TO 
DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY 
INJUNCTION, [Dkt. 225]; and 
 
(2) GRANTING MOTION TO 
SEAL, [Dkt. 246] 
 
 
On February 29, 2024, Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”) filed a 
motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction in Yick v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 
21-cv-00376-VC (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 103 (the “PI Order”). (Dkt. 225). Plaintiffs 
don’t oppose the motion because EDD: terminated its longstanding contract with 
BOA, directed BOA to close cardholders’ existing EDD debit card accounts, and 
required BOA to provide notice to each affected cardholder and inform those with 
an existing balance as of April 30, 2024, how to recover the funds before they 
escheat to the state. (Dkt. 248). Having considered the parties’ briefing, the Court 
finds the motion suitable for resolution without oral argument. The hearing set for 
April 29, 2024, at 11:30 a.m., in Courtroom 14A is VACATED pursuant to Civil 
Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). The Court GRANTS BOA’s motion and the PI Order is 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 255     Filed 04/03/24     PageID.2516     Page 1
of 3

 
2 
21-md-2992-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
dissolved as follows: 
(1) 
For accounts that are already closed, any ongoing notice requirements 
are immediately dissolved. 
(2) 
For all other accounts, any ongoing notice requirements are dissolved 
as of April 5, 2024. 
(3) 
All remaining provisions of the PI Order are dissolved as of June 1, 
2024. 
In addition, Plaintiffs filed a motion to seal certain parts of their response to 
BOA’s motion to dissolve preliminary injunction. (Dkt. 246). The motion to seal is 
unopposed. According to Plaintiffs, they dispute BOA’s confidentiality designation 
under the parties’ Protective Order. (Id. at 1). However, the parties haven’t 
exhausted the meet and confer process, so “Plaintiffs are filing this sealing motion 
in accordance with the Protective Order and the Local Rules.” (Id.). 
The public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to 
non-dispositive motions because those documents are often “‘unrelated, or only 
tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.’” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 
Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Ests. 
of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). The Ninth 
Circuit has determined that district courts must consider “whether the motion is 
more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” when deciding whether to 
apply the “good cause” or “compelling reason” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 
Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding “compelling 
reason” standard applied to the preliminary injunction motion that was more than 
tangentially related to the merits of the case). Here, the motion to dissolve the 
preliminary injunction isn’t more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. 
Looking specifically at the portions of Plaintiffs’ response that have been redacted, 
this information doesn’t go to the merits, but rather lists the different policies and 
practices that BOA has implemented. The Court considers Plaintiffs’ motion to seal 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 255     Filed 04/03/24     PageID.2517     Page 2
of 3

 
3 
21-md-2992-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
under the good cause standard. 
For good cause, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. Phillips, 307 
F.3d at 1213 (“When a court grants a protective order for information produced 
during discovery, it already has determined that ‘good cause’ exists to protect this 
information from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery 
against the need for confidentiality.”). The Clerk is directed to file under seal the 
proposed document currently sealed lodged with the Court. (Dkt. 247). 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated:  April 3, 2024 
Honorable Larry Alan Burns 
United States District Judge 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 255     Filed 04/03/24     PageID.2518     Page 3
of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.255.0.pdf

Size

233,648 bytes

SHA-256

1efded22cf0eb0a97d11092ace51bfe7aae89f41a320059b4bbf680cac4a1016

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.255.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)