ANSWER to 304 Amended Complaint and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Second… — Bofa Ca Unemployment (Dkt. 316)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 316 · 2024-08-15 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com 
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (admitted 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 (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 
YChan@jonesday.com 
JONES DAY 
100 High Street 
Boston, MA 02110 
Tel: +1 617 690 3939 
Fax: + 617 449 6999 
Attorneys for Defendant 
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
IN RE BANK OF AMERICA 
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT 
BENEFITS LITIGATION, 
 
 
This Document Relates to All Actions 
Case No. 3-21-md-02992-GPC-MSB 
DEFENDANT BANK OF 
AMERICA’S ANSWER AND 
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO 
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND 
AMENDED MASTER 
CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3915     Page 1
of 214

 
2 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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”) hereby answers (“Answer”) and 
pleads affirmative defenses to the Second Amended Master Consolidated Complaint 
(“Second”) filed on July 16, 2024, ECF No. 304, by purported class representative 
plaintiffs Jennifer Yick, Vanessa Rivera, Candace Koole, Azuri Moon, Roland 
Oosthuizen, Rosemary Mathews, Carlos Rodriguez, J. Michael Willrich, Lindsay 
McClure, Clara Cajas, Stephanie Smith, Alan Karam, Brian Wiggins, Jonathan 
Smith, Alex Yuan, Jory Zoelle, Cindy Baker, Ursula Auburn, Kuang Ting Chong, 
Stephanie Moore, and Zinaida Petrova on behalf of themselves and allegedly on 
behalf of all others similarly situated (collectively, for purposes of reference but 
without any admission that any class should be certified, “Class Representative 
Plaintiffs”),1 by 133 individual plaintiffs (collectively, “Individual Plaintiffs”), and 
by all other individuals seeking relief through the SAMCC (together with the Class 
Representative Plaintiffs and the Individual Plaintiffs, “Plaintiffs”). 
BANA need not respond to the headings and subheadings within the SAMCC, 
which are restated herein solely for organizational purposes.  To the extent that a 
response is required, BANA denies any averments in the SAMCC headings or 
subheadings.  BANA further states that certain allegations are no longer at issue in 
this matter in light of: (1) the Court’s May 25, 2023 Order on BANA’s Motion to 
Dismiss, see ECF No. 126, (2) the Court’s June 25, 2024 Order on BANA’s Motion 
to Dismiss, see ECF No. 297, and (3) the Court’s dismissal of certain former class 
representatives and former individual plaintiffs pursuant to Plaintiffs’ notices of 
dismissal, see ECF Nos. 150, 194, 217, 240, 254, and 265.  BANA need not respond 
 
1After conducting certain discovery, Class Counsel informed BANA on January 29, 
2024 that only the following ten individuals would represent the putative class as 
Class Representatives in this action:  V. Rivera, Koole, Moon, Oosthuizen, 
Willrich, McClure, Yuan, Zoelle, Chong, and Moore. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3916     Page 2
of 214

 
3 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
to those allegations either.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies each 
and every one of those averments. 
This Answer is made without waiving, but expressly reserving all rights that 
BANA has to file dispositive motions or other responses addressed to some or all of 
the allegations and causes of actions asserted in the SAMCC.  Except as expressly 
admitted herein, BANA denies all allegations in the SAMCC. 
The statements and allegations contained in the first and second unnumbered 
paragraphs are introductory and conclusory in nature, and therefore require no 
response.  To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Plaintiffs 
purport to assert certain causes of actions and denies all of the remaining allegations 
contained in the first and second unnumbered paragraphs. 
BANA answers the allegations in each of the SAMCC-numbered paragraphs 
as follows. 
I. 
INTRODUCTION 
1. 
BANA admits only that Plaintiffs received benefits through programs 
administered by California’s Employment Development Department (“EDD”), not 
by BANA.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 1, and therefore denies them. 
2. 
BANA admits that it entered into a contract with EDD pursuant to which 
BANA issued prepaid debit cards (“EDD Prepaid Debit Cards” or “Cards”) to EDD-
approved recipients who chose to receive their benefits through EDD Prepaid Debit 
Cards, which are linked to individual EDD Prepaid Debit Card accounts (“EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Accounts” or “Accounts”) maintained by BANA, but denies that 
Plaintiffs and Class Members received their benefits payments “not from EDD 
directly.”  BANA admits that Plaintiffs and Class Members received EDD benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card and that BANA managed those 
Cards as well as the Accounts accessed by those Cards.  BANA denies that it failed 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3917     Page 3
of 214

 
4 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
to take necessary or reasonable steps to protect Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ EDD 
Prepaid Debit Cards and Accounts from fraudulent access by third parties, denies that 
Plaintiffs and Class Members were treated with less care than consumer debit and 
credit card holders, and denies that consumer debit and credit card holders are a 
relevant or a reasonable comparison given the many differences between the products 
and agreements pertaining to them.  BANA denies that it chose to issue prepaid debit 
cards with magnetic stripe technology.  BANA admits only that EDD’s contract with 
BANA specified that EDD Prepaid Debit Cards would be equipped with magnetic 
stripe technology, and that BANA lacked authority under the terms of its contract to 
implement EMV chips into EDD Prepaid Debit Cards without EDD’s approval, 
which BANA did not receive until 2021.  BANA denies that EMV chip technology 
was or is the “industry-standard” for prepaid debit cards like EDD Prepaid Debit 
Cards, or that magnetic stripe technology was “outdated” for prepaid debit cards like 
EDD Prepaid Debit Cards.  BANA denies that magnetic stripe technology makes 
prepaid debit cards “far more susceptible to skimming, cloning, and other schemes” 
that allowed third parties to fraudulently use and access Plaintiffs’ and Class 
Members’ EDD Prepaid Debit Cards and Accounts, and denies that its security 
practices enabled unauthorized persons to access Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ 
personal and financial information and to make fraudulent, unauthorized transactions 
involving Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ EDD Prepaid Debit Cards and Accounts.  
All remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 are argumentative, conclusory, and state 
legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
required, BANA denies them. 
3. 
BANA denies that it “adopted a series of ‘customer service’ practices 
and policies that have required Plaintiffs and Class Members to spend dozens of 
hours on the phone with customer service,” and denies that it has “otherwise 
frustrated and obstructed Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ efforts” to submit 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3918     Page 4
of 214

 
5 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
unauthorized transaction claims.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 are 
argumentative, conclusory, and state legal conclusions to which no response is 
required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
4. 
BANA admits only that there is a cardholder agreement (“Cardholder 
Agreement”) between BANA and the cardholder of the EDD Prepaid Debit Card, the 
terms of which speak for themselves, and that the Cardholder Agreement states, in 
part, that “[u]nder the Bank of America ‘zero liability’ policy, you may incur no 
liability for unauthorized use of your Card up to the amount of the unauthorized 
transaction, provided you notify us within a reasonable time of the loss.”  BANA 
denies that it did not implement this policy as promised, and denies any and all factual 
allegations contained in the second and third sentences of Paragraph 4.  All remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 4 are argumentative, conclusory, and state legal conclusions 
to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
5. 
The allegations in Paragraph 5 state legal conclusions to which no 
response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
II. 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 
6. 
The allegations in Paragraph 6 state legal conclusions to which no 
response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
7. 
The allegations in Paragraph 7 state legal conclusions to which no 
response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA admits that it 
transacts business in California, and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 7. 
8. 
The allegations in Paragraph 8 state legal conclusions to which no 
response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3919     Page 5
of 214

 
6 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
III. 
THE PARTIES 
A. 
Class Representative Plaintiffs 
9. 
BANA admits that Yick received EDD benefits through a BANA-issued 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms of 
BANA’s contract with EDD beginning in or about May 2020.  BANA denies that 
Yick was the victim of unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Card Account, 
but admits that Yick contacted BANA in early December 2020 to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions from November 2020.  As to Yick’s allegations regarding 
her residence, employment history, and benefits application, BANA lacks knowledge 
and information sufficient to admit or deny, and therefore denies them.  All remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 9 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
10. 
BANA admits that V. Rivera received EDD benefits through a BANA-
issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD beginning in or about February 2020.  BANA denies 
that V. Rivera was the victim of an unauthorized $800 ATM withdrawal on her EDD 
Prepaid Card Account, but admits that an $800 ATM withdrawal took place on V. 
Rivera’s Account on January 29, 2021, and that V. Rivera contacted BANA on 
February 4, 2021 to report an allegedly unauthorized transaction.  As to V. Rivera’s 
allegations regarding her residence, employment history, and benefits application, 
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, and therefore 
denies them.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 10 state legal conclusions to 
which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
11. 
BANA admits that Koole received EDD benefits through a BANA-
issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD.  BANA denies that Koole was the victim of 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3920     Page 6
of 214

 
7 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 
2020, but admits that Koole contacted BANA in December 2020 to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions.  As to Koole’s allegations regarding her residence, 
employment history, and benefits application, BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny, and therefore denies them.  All remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 11 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
12. 
BANA admits that Moon received EDD benefits through a BANA-
issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD beginning in or about June 2020.  BANA denies that 
Moon was the victim of unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in December 2020, but admits that multiple ATM withdrawals took place 
on Moon’s Account in October 2020 totaling $1,800, and that Moon contacted 
BANA in October 2020 to report allegedly unauthorized transactions.  As to Moon’s 
allegations regarding his residence, employment history, and benefits application, 
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, and therefore 
denies them.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 12 state legal conclusions to 
which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
13. 
BANA admits that Oosthuizen received EDD benefits through a 
BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with 
the terms of BANA’s contract with EDD.  BANA denies that Oosthuizen was the 
victim of unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
December 2020, but admits that five ATM withdrawals for $1,000 each took place 
on Oosthuizen’s Account in September 2020, and that Oosthuizen contacted BANA 
in September 2020 to report allegedly unauthorized transactions.  As to Oosthuizen’s 
allegations regarding his residence, employment history, and benefits application, 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3921     Page 7
of 214

 
8 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, and therefore 
denies them.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 13 state legal conclusions to 
which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
14. 
BANA admits that Mathews received EDD benefits through a BANA-
issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD.  BANA denies that Mathews was the victim of 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in October 2020, 
but admits that Mathews contacted BANA in October 2020 to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions.  As to Mathew’s allegations regarding her residence, 
employment history, and benefits application, BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny, and therefore denies them.  All remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 14 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
15. 
BANA admits that C. Rodriguez received EDD benefits through a 
BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with 
the terms of BANA’s contract with EDD.  BANA denies that C. Rodriguez was the 
victim of unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
October 2020, but admits that C. Rodriguez contacted BANA in December 2020 to 
report allegedly unauthorized transactions.  As to C. Rodriguez’s allegations 
regarding his residence, employment history, and benefits application, BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, and therefore denies them.  
All remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 state legal conclusions to which no 
response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
16. 
BANA admits that Willrich received EDD benefits through a BANA-
issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD.  BANA denies that Willrich was the victim of 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3922     Page 8
of 214

 
9 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but admits that 
Willrich contacted BANA to report allegedly unauthorized transactions.  As to 
Willrich’s allegations regarding his residence, employment history, and benefits 
application, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, and 
therefore denies them.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 16 state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them. 
17. 
BANA admits that McClure received EDD benefits through a BANA-
issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD.  BANA denies that McClure was the victim of 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but admits that 
McClure contacted BANA to report allegedly unauthorized transactions on or about 
December 1, 2020.  As to McClure’s allegations regarding her residence, 
employment history, and benefits application, BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny, and therefore denies them.  All remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 17 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
18. 
[Removed] 
19. 
BANA admits that Cajas received EDD benefits through a BANA-
issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD.  BANA denies that Cajas was the victim of 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but admits that 
Cajas contacted BANA to report allegedly unauthorized transactions.  As to Cajas’s 
allegations regarding her residence, employment history, and benefits application, 
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, and therefore 
denies them.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 19 state legal conclusions to 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3923     Page 9
of 214

 
10 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
20. 
BANA admits that S. Smith began receiving EDD benefits through a 
BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with 
the terms of BANA’s contract with EDD in or about June 2020.  BANA denies that 
S. Smith was the victim of unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account, but admits that S. Smith contacted BANA in December 2020 to report 
allegedly unauthorized transactions.  As to S. Smith’s allegations regarding her 
residence, employment history, and benefits application, BANA lacks knowledge 
and information sufficient to admit or deny, and therefore denies them.  All remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 20 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
21. 
BANA admits that Karam began receiving EDD benefits through a 
BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with 
the terms of BANA’s contract with EDD in or about June 2020.  BANA denies that 
Karam was the victim of unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account, but admits that Karam contacted BANA in August 2020 to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions.  As to Karam’s allegations regarding his residence, 
employment history, and benefits application, BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny, and therefore denies them.  All remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 21 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
22. 
[Removed] 
23. 
BANA denies that Wiggins began receiving EDD benefits through a 
BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with 
the terms of BANA’s contract with EDD in August 2020.  BANA denies that 
Wiggins was the victim of unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3924     Page
10 of 214

 
11 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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, but admits that Wiggins contacted BANA in November 2020 to report 
allegedly unauthorized transactions.  As to Wiggins’s allegations regarding his 
residence, employment history, and benefits application, BANA lacks knowledge 
and information sufficient to admit or deny, and therefore denies them.  All remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 23 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
24. 
BANA admits that J. Smith received EDD benefits through a BANA-
issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD.  BANA denies that J. Smith was the victim of 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but admits that 
J. Smith contacted BANA to report allegedly unauthorized transactions.  As to J. 
Smith’s allegations regarding his residence, employment history, and benefits 
application, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, and 
therefore denies them.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 24 state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them. 
25. 
BANA admits that Yuan received EDD benefits through a BANA-
issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD.  BANA denies that Yuan was the victim of 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but admits that 
Yuan contacted BANA to report allegedly unauthorized transactions.  As to Yuan’s 
allegations regarding his residence, employment history, and benefits application, 
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, and therefore 
denies them.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 25 state legal conclusions to 
which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3925     Page
11 of 214

 
12 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
26. 
BANA admits that Zoelle received EDD benefits through a BANA-
issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD.  BANA denies that Zoelle was the victim of 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but admits that 
Zoelle contacted BANA to report allegedly unauthorized transactions.  As to Zoelle’s 
allegations regarding her residence, employment history, and benefits application, 
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, and therefore 
denies them.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 26 state legal conclusions to 
which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
27. 
BANA admits that Baker received EDD benefits through a BANA-
issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD.  BANA denies that Baker was the victim of 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but admits that 
Baker contacted BANA to report allegedly unauthorized transactions.  As to Baker’s 
allegations regarding her residence, employment history, and benefits application, 
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, and therefore 
denies them.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 27 state legal conclusions to 
which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
28. 
BANA admits that Auburn received EDD benefits through a BANA-
issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD.  BANA denies that Auburn was the victim of 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but admits that 
Auburn contacted BANA to report allegedly unauthorized transactions.  As to 
Auburn’s allegations regarding her residence, employment history, and benefits 
application, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, and 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3926     Page
12 of 214

 
13 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
therefore denies them.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 28 state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them. 
29. 
[Removed] 
30. 
BANA admits that Chong received EDD benefits through a BANA-
issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD.  BANA denies that Chong was the victim of 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but admits that 
Chong contacted BANA in July 2020 to report allegedly unauthorized transactions.  
As to Chong’s allegations regarding his residence, employment history, and benefits 
application, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, and 
therefore denies them.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 30 state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them. 
31. 
BANA admits that Moore received EDD benefits through a BANA-
issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD.  BANA denies that Moore was the victim of 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but admits that 
Moore contacted BANA in July 2020 to report allegedly unauthorized transactions.  
As to Moore’s allegations regarding her residence, employment history, and benefits 
application, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, and 
therefore denies them.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 31 state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them. 
32. 
BANA admits that Petrova received EDD benefits through a BANA-
issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD.  BANA denies that Petrova was the victim of 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3927     Page
13 of 214

 
14 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but admits that 
Petrova contacted BANA in May 2021 to report allegedly unauthorized transactions.  
As to Petrova’s allegations regarding her residence, employment history, and benefits 
application, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, and 
therefore denies them.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 32 state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them. 
33. 
[Removed] 
B. 
Individual Plaintiffs 
34. 
Paragraph 34 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. 
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that the Individual Plaintiffs 
who have not been dismissed from this case as of the date of this Answer purport to 
assert certain causes of action.  BANA denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 
34. 
C. 
Defendants 
35. 
BANA admits that it is a financial institution headquartered in North 
Carolina, but denies that it is incorporated in Delaware.  BANA admits that it 
conducts business in California, and that pursuant to a contract with EDD, BANA 
previously issued EDD Prepaid Debit Cards to EDD-approved recipients who chose 
to receive their benefits through EDD Prepaid Debit Cards.  BANA denies the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 35. 
36. 
BANA admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring causes of actions against 
certain Doe Defendants.  However, BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 36, and therefore 
denies them. 
37. 
The allegations in Paragraph 37 state legal conclusions to which no 
response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3928     Page
14 of 214

 
15 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
IV. 
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 
A. 
“The Bank’s Contract with EDD” 
38. 
BANA admits that it understands EDD to be an agency of the State of 
California that offers a variety of employment-related services and is responsible for 
administering programs for unemployment insurance benefits, pandemic 
unemployment 
assistance 
benefits, 
pandemic 
emergency 
unemployment 
compensation benefits, disability insurance benefits, and paid family leave benefits.  
BANA denies that EDD is responsible for administering benefits programs for low-
income Californians. 
39. 
BANA admits that, in 2010, it entered into a contract with EDD to 
provide certain services to assist with EDD’s distributions of EDD benefits.  BANA 
further states that its contract with EDD referenced in Paragraph 39 speaks for itself 
and is the best evidence of its content and denies any characterization inconsistent 
with the text of the contract. 
40. 
BANA denies the allegations in Paragraph 40. 
41. 
BANA admits that EDD began distributing benefits through BANA-
issued EDD Prepaid Debit Cards in or around July 2011 pursuant to the contract 
between BANA and EDD.  BANA further admits that the contract between BANA 
and EDD provided for BANA’s issuance of EDD Prepaid Debit Cards and that EDD 
did not contract with BANA to provide any other forms of payment, such as paper 
checks.  BANA lacks knowledge and information as to how EDD handled other 
forms of payment or whether EDD Prepaid Debit Cards were presented by EDD as 
the “default” means of distributing benefits, but understands that at least one other 
form of payment was available.  BANA otherwise states that its contract with EDD 
referenced in Paragraph 41 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content 
and denies any characterization inconsistent with the text of the contract. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3929     Page
15 of 214

 
16 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
42. 
BANA admits that in or about 2015, it submitted a response to EDD’s 
Request for Proposals (“2015 RFP Response” or “2015 Proposal”) to extend the 
scope and duration of the contract.  BANA admits that the 2015 Proposal was 
accepted by EDD and incorporated by reference into a new contract for Electronic 
Bill Payment services between EDD and BANA, with an initial term of August 1, 
2016 through July 31, 2021.  BANA states that the 2015 Proposal speaks for itself 
and is the best evidence of its content, including any representations by BANA 
allegedly contained therein, and denies any characterization inconsistent with the text 
of the 2015 Proposal. 
43. 
BANA states that the 2015 Proposal speaks for itself and is the best 
evidence of its content and denies any characterization regarding representations it 
made that are inconsistent with the text of the 2015 Proposal. 
44. 
BANA states that the 2015 Proposal speaks for itself and is the best 
evidence of its content and denies any characterization regarding representations it 
made that are inconsistent with the text of the 2015 Proposal. 
45. 
BANA admits only that BANA entered into a contract with EDD to 
continue to provide certain services regarding EDD benefits following the 2015 
Proposal.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 45, and therefore denies them. 
46. 
The allegation in Paragraph 46 is a legal conclusion to which no 
response is required.  To the extent that a response is required, BANA admits only 
that pursuant to a contract with EDD, BANA previously issued EDD Prepaid Debit 
Cards to EDD-approved recipients who chose to receive their benefits through EDD 
Prepaid Debit Cards.  BANA otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 46. 
47. 
BANA denies that EDD Prepaid Debit Cards were the exclusive means 
of receiving EDD benefits.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny whether EDD presented EDD Prepaid Debit Cards as the “default” 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3930     Page
16 of 214

 
17 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
means of distributing benefits, or to admit or deny the authenticity, references to, or 
content of the undated webpage referenced in Paragraph 47, including in footnotes 2 
and 3, which was not attached to the SAMCC, and therefore denies the allegations. 
48. 
The allegation that “EDD has delegated to the Bank the public functions 
of distributing EDD benefits to Cardholders” is a legal conclusion to which no 
response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies the 
allegation.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegation in Paragraph 48 that “EDD Prepaid Debit Cards and Accounts are an 
integral part of EDD’s benefits distribution and administration system,” and therefore 
denies it.  BANA states that the contract referenced in Paragraph 48 speaks for itself 
and is the best evidence of its content and denies any characterization inconsistent 
with the text of the contract. 
49. 
BANA denies the allegations in Paragraph 49. 
50. 
BANA admits that, in accordance with EDD’s instructions, BANA 
froze a number of Accounts for suspected enrollment fraud between approximately 
September 2020 and March 2021, and admits that, according to the SAMCC, none 
of these EDD-requested freezes are at issue in this case.  BANA denies that it is 
responsible for or capable of preventing benefits enrollment fraud, as determining 
benefits eligibility is the responsibility of EDD under its contract with BANA and 
the terms of the EDD benefits program.  As to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 
50, BANA states that the contract referenced in Paragraph 50 speaks for itself and is 
the best evidence of its content and denies any characterization inconsistent with the 
text of the contract. 
51. 
BANA admits that between September 2020 and March 2021, BANA 
froze certain EDD Prepaid Debit Card Accounts as permitted under the Cardholder 
Agreement and its contract with EDD based on BANA’s assumption and belief at the 
time that the cardholders associated with those Accounts had engaged in enrollment 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3931     Page
17 of 214

 
18 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
fraud, and avers that such Accounts were presented to EDD to verify their eligibility 
for EDD benefits.  BANA also admits that between March 2021 and the end of the 
program, BANA blocked certain EDD Prepaid Debit Card Accounts as permitted 
under the Cardholder Agreement and its contract with EDD based on BANA’s 
assumption and belief at the time that the cardholders associated with those Accounts 
had engaged in fraud, but otherwise denies the allegations in the second sentence of 
Paragraph 51.  BANA denies that it earns interest on funds in frozen Accounts.  All 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 51, including whether the Account freezes or 
blocks alleged in Paragraph 51 are at issue in this case, state legal conclusions to 
which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
the allegations. 
52. 
BANA admits only that it has frozen certain cardholders’ Accounts as 
permitted under the Cardholder Agreement and its contract with EDD, and has 
required certain cardholders to re-establish their identity and re-verify their eligibility 
with EDD as a condition of unfreezing their Accounts.  BANA denies all remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 52. 
53. 
BANA admits that it received a communication from EDD on or about 
October 15, 2020, but denies any of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 53 that 
are inconsistent with the contents of that communication.  BANA denies all 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 53. 
54. 
The allegations in Paragraph 54 state legal conclusions to which no 
response is required.  To the extent a response is required as to the allegations 
concerning the contract referenced in Paragraph 54, BANA states that the contract 
speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content and denies any characterization 
inconsistent with the text of the contract.  BANA denies all remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 54. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3932     Page
18 of 214

 
19 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 Bank’s Failure to Secure EDD Prepaid Debit Cardholder 
Information” 
55. 
The allegations in Paragraph 55 state legal conclusions to which no 
response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
56. 
The allegations in Paragraph 56 state legal conclusions to which no 
response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
57. 
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 57, and therefore denies them.  BANA 
lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the authenticity, 
references to, or content of the article quoted in a footnote to this Paragraph, which 
was not attached to the SAMCC, and therefore denies allegations based on it.  BANA 
denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 57. 
58. 
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in the first five sentences of Paragraph 58, and therefore denies them.  
BANA denies the allegations in the sixth sentence in Paragraph 58. 
C. 
“The Bank’s Use of Outdated, Vulnerable Magnetic Stripe Technology” 
59. 
BANA admits the allegations in Paragraph 59. 
60. 
BANA denies that debit and credit cards with magnetic stipes are no 
longer the “standard,” as Department of Labor (“DOL”) and Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) literature indicates otherwise at least with respect to 
prepaid cards, see CFPB, “The Consumer Credit Card Market,” at § 9.1.1 (Dec. 
2015), and Mastercard expressly exempts prepaid cards from a change to EMV chips, 
see Vicki Hyman, MasterCard, “Swiping Left on Magnetic Stripes,” available at: 
https://www.mastercard.com/news/perspectives/2021/magnetic-stripe/, accessed on 
August 14, 2024.  BANA admits the remaining allegations in Paragraph 60. 
61. 
BANA denies that data on a magnetic stripe is static and easily readable, 
and that magnetic stripe cards are highly susceptible to fraud, as such cards require a 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3933     Page
19 of 214

 
20 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
PIN that cannot be stolen by skimming.  BANA admits that the process of 
“skimming” occurs when a wireless transmitter affixed to a card reader collects the 
information on the magnetic stripe when the Card is swiped or inserted and sends it 
to a nearby computer, and avers that “skimming” of the data stored on a magnetic 
stripe can occur regardless of whether the card is equipped with EMV chip 
technology.  BANA admits that the recipient can potentially use this information to 
clone a consumer’s card or conduct unauthorized transactions, but otherwise denies 
the allegations in Paragraph 61. 
62. 
BANA admits that personal data on magnetic stripe and EMV cards can 
potentially be captured by hackers, and can potentially be used to make fraudulent 
purchases.  BANA further states that it lacks knowledge and information sufficient 
to admit or deny the authenticity, references to, or content of the webpages referenced 
in Paragraph 62, which were not attached to the SAMCC, and therefore denies 
allegations based on them.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 62, and therefore denies them. 
63. 
BANA denies that the financial industry has adopted EMV chip 
technology as the industry standard for prepaid debit cards over the past decade, as 
the DOL, CFPB, and MasterCard indicate otherwise.  See CFPB, “The Consumer 
Credit Card Market,” at § 9.1.1; Vicki Hyman, MasterCard, “Swiping Left on 
Magnetic Stripes,” available at: https://www.mastercard.com/news/perspectives/ 
2021/magnetic-stripe/, accessed on August 14, 2024.  BANA admits that, while 
magnetic stripes generally have the same card-identifying information provided for 
each transaction, EMV chips generally contain data that can be interacted with, 
altered, and updated, and admits that an EMV chip generally creates a unique 
electronic signature for each transaction if the EMV chip, rather than the magnetic 
stripe on that card, is used for the transaction.  BANA denies all remaining allegations 
in Paragraph 63, and further responds that data stored on the magnetic stripe of EMV 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3934     Page
20 of 214

 
21 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
chip cards can still potentially be skimmed and used in the same manner as the data 
on magnetic stripe cards irrespective of the EMV chip. 
64. 
BANA admits that, in 2011, it announced its plan to offer EMV chips 
in corporate credit cards to its U.S. business customers who regularly traveled outside 
of the U.S.  BANA states that the fact that BANA issued certain corporate credit 
cards with EMV chips is irrelevant to the issue of whether and when BANA offered 
EMV chips on EDD Prepaid Debit Cards, which were issued pursuant to the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD and consistent with industry standards for prepaid 
cards. 
65. 
BANA admits that, on September 30, 2014, it announced that it would 
include EMV chip technology on “all new and reissued” consumer debit cards.  
BANA states that the Business Wire article cited by Plaintiffs in Paragraph 65, which 
was not attached to the SAMCC, speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its 
content, and denies any characterization inconsistent with the text of that article, but 
does not admit that the article’s contents are true or accurate.  BANA also avers that 
the question of when it incorporated EMV chip technology into “new and reissued” 
consumer credit cards is irrelevant to the issue of whether and when BANA offered 
EMV chips on EDD Prepaid Debit Cards, which were issued pursuant to the terms 
of BANA’s contract with EDD and consistent with industry standards for prepaid 
cards.  BANA denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 65. 
66. 
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 66, and therefore denies them. 
67. 
The allegations in Paragraph 67 are argumentative and conclusory, and 
state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
required, BANA denies them. 
68. 
BANA states that its current website speaks for itself and is the best 
evidence of its content and denies any characterization in Paragraph 68 that is 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3935     Page
21 of 214

 
22 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
inconsistent with the text of its current website.  BANA further states that the 
allegations in Paragraph 68 are irrelevant to the claims at issue because the terms of 
the BANA’s contract with EDD required only magnetic stripe technology and EDD 
approval prior to any technology-related changes initiated by BANA.  BANA denies 
all remaining allegations in Paragraph 68. 
69. 
BANA denies the allegations in Paragraph 69. 
D. 
“The Bank’s Contractual Promises and Representations to Cardholders” 
70. 
BANA admits that the Cardholder Agreement states, in part, that 
“[u]nder the Bank of America ‘zero liability’ policy, you may incur no liability for 
unauthorized use of your Card up to the amount of the unauthorized transaction, 
provided you notify us within a reasonable time of the loss.”  BANA further states 
that the Cardholder Agreement and its website are the best evidence of their content 
and denies any characterization in Paragraph 70 that is inconsistent with the text of 
the Cardholder Agreement and its website. 
71. 
BANA admits that the Cardholder Agreement states, in part, that 
“[u]nder the Bank of America ‘zero liability’ policy, you may incur no liability for 
unauthorized use of your Card up to the amount of the unauthorized transaction, 
provided you notify us within a reasonable time” of the loss.  BANA further states 
that the Cardholder Agreement speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content, 
and denies any characterization in Paragraph 71 that is inconsistent with the text of 
the Cardholder Agreement.  BANA denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 
71. 
72. 
BANA admits that the Cardholder Agreement states, in part, that BANA 
“will determine whether an error occurred within 10 business days” after an 
unauthorized transaction is timely reported.  BANA admits that the Cardholder 
Agreement states that BANA reserves the right to “take up to 45 days to investigate” 
but that “[i]f [BANA] need[s] more time” to make a decision based on the 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3936     Page
22 of 214

 
23 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
unauthorized transaction report, BANA “will credit [the cardholder’s] Account 
within 10 business days for the amount you think is in error, so that [the cardholder] 
will have the money during the time it takes us to complete [BANA]’s investigation.”  
BANA states that the Cardholder Agreement speaks for itself and is the best evidence 
of its content, and denies any characterization in Paragraph 72 that is inconsistent 
with the text of the Cardholder Agreement. 
73. 
BANA states that the Cardholder Agreement, its website speak, and the 
“EDD Prepaid Debit Card FAQ webpage” for themselves and are the best evidence 
of its content, and denies any characterization inconsistent with the text of the 
Cardholder Agreement, its website, or the “EDD Prepaid Debit Card FAQ webpage.” 
E. 
“The Rampant Third-Party Fraud on EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Accounts” 
74. 
BANA admits that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted California’s 
economy and that many workers lost their jobs due to business closures and layoffs 
in the spring of 2020.  BANA states that the alleged DOL graph and accompanying 
statistics referenced in Paragraph 74 speak for themselves and are the best evidence 
of their content, and denies any characterization inconsistent with the graph and its 
accompanying statistics, but does not admit that any of those contents are true or 
accurate.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations as to whether certain industries were “especially hard hit,” and therefore 
denies them. 
75. 
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in the first three sentences of Paragraph 75.  With respect to the fourth 
sentence, BANA admits only that it issued over nine million EDD Prepaid Debit 
Cards to individuals in California at the instruction of EDD pursuant to its contract 
with EDD.  BANA lacks information and knowledge sufficient to admit or deny 
what, if anything, EDD reviewed to determine whether or not each of those benefits 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3937     Page
23 of 214

 
24 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
recipients were eligible for benefits before requesting that BANA issue them an EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card, and therefore denies the allegation that EDD found they were 
eligible for unemployment benefits. 
76. 
BANA lacks information and knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 76, and therefore denies them. 
77. 
BANA admits only that EDD Prepaid Debit Card cardholders have 
reported thousands of dollars in unauthorized transactions and that such alleged 
unauthorized transactions took place via various methods, but denies that all 
allegedly unauthorized Account transactions were, in fact, unauthorized.  BANA 
further states that it lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
authenticity, references to, or content of the webpages referenced in Paragraph 77, 
which were not attached to the SAMCC, and therefore denies allegations based on 
them.  BANA denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 77, and specifically 
denies that EDD Prepaid Debit Cards “have proven highly susceptible to 
unauthorized use.” 
78. 
BANA denies the allegations in Paragraph 78.  As for the articles and 
reports referenced in Paragraph 78, BANA states only that those articles and reports 
speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, but does not admit 
that any of those contents are true or accurate. 
79. 
BANA admits that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 
Act was signed into law in March 2020, and states that the law speaks for itself.  
BANA admits that the infusion of government funds led to an increase in fraudulent 
activity directed at unemployment benefits programs, including fraudulent 
applications for unemployment benefits by individuals not entitled to benefits (e.g., 
prisoners, international criminal syndicate members, out-of-state individuals), and 
that some agencies issued alerts regarding such fraud once it was detected, but denies 
that the fraud was readily foreseeable to or preventable by BANA.  As for the articles 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3938     Page
24 of 214

 
25 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 reports referenced in Paragraph 79, BANA states only that those articles and 
reports speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, but does not 
admit that any of those contents are true or accurate.  Except as expressly admitted, 
BANA denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 79, and specifically denies the 
allegations in the last sentence of Paragraph 79 alleging that BANA “failed to take 
reasonable measures to prepare for, prevent, or respond to the readily foreseeable 
wave of transactional fraud affecting its EDD Prepaid Debit Cards and Accounts.”  
All remaining allegations in Paragraph 79 state legal conclusions to which no 
response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
F. 
“The Bank’s Evasive and Ineffectual Response Prior to the Filing of 
Plaintiffs’ Initial Class Action Complaint and the Court’s Issuance of a 
Preliminary Injunction” 
80. 
BANA denies the allegations in Paragraph 80.  As for the article 
referenced in the footnote to Paragraph 80, BANA states only that the article speaks 
for itself and is the best evidence of its content but does not admit that any of its 
content is true or accurate. 
1. 
“The Bank’s Policy and Practice of Not Employing Reasonable 
Practices and Procedures to Monitor for, Detect, Stop, and 
Promptly Notify Cardholders About Suspicious Transactions 
Involving Their Cards and Accounts” 
81. 
BANA states that the 2015 Proposal referenced in Paragraph 81 speaks 
for itself and is the best evidence of its content and denies any characterization 
regarding representations it made that are inconsistent with the text of the 2015 
Proposal.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 81 state legal conclusions to which 
no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
82. 
BANA admits only that the contact information for the majority of 
Plaintiffs’ Accounts reflects addresses in California.  As to the allegations in 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3939     Page
25 of 214

 
26 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
Paragraph 82 regarding unnamed putative class members, BANA lacks knowledge 
and information sufficient to admit or deny them, and therefore BANA denies them. 
83. 
BANA admits that it was aware of the COVID-19 pandemic, that some 
jurisdictions imposed travel restrictions, and that some individuals chose to or were 
unable to travel during this time.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 83 state 
legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
required, BANA denies them. 
84. 
BANA admits that it “had access to Plaintiffs’ [] individual EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card and Account transaction histories.”  As to the allegations in 
Paragraph 84 regarding unnamed putative class members, BANA lacks knowledge 
and information sufficient to admit or deny them, and therefore denies them.  
Regarding the allegations specific to Plaintiff Jennifer Yick, BANA admits that Yick 
had multiple DoorDash transactions in November 2020 and that, according to Yick’s 
transaction history, those DoorDash transactions all took place in California.  As to 
all remaining allegations related to Yick in Paragraph 84, BANA lacks knowledge 
and information sufficient to admit or deny them, and therefore denies them.  All 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 84 state legal conclusions to which no response 
is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
85. 
As to the allegations related to Yick in Paragraph 85, BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny them, and therefore denies 
them.  BANA denies the allegations in Paragraph 85 concerning its alleged 
“obligation” to “monitor for, detect, stop, and notify Cardholders” about suspicious 
Account activity.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 85 state legal conclusions 
to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
86. 
Paragraph 86 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3940     Page
26 of 214

 
27 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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. 
“The Bank’s Policy and Practice of Making it Difficult for 
Cardholders to Report Unauthorized Transactions” 
87. 
As to the allegations in Paragraph 87 which regard unnamed 
cardholders, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, 
and therefore denies them.  BANA denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 87. 
88. 
As to the allegations in Paragraph 88 which regard unnamed 
cardholders, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, 
and therefore denies them.  BANA denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 88. 
3. 
“The Bank’s Policy and Practice of Automatically Denying 
Unauthorized 
Transaction 
Claims 
Without 
Reasonable 
Investigation or Explanation, Including Based Solely on a Highly 
Flawed ‘Claim Fraud Filter’” 
89. 
As to the allegations in Paragraph 89 which regard unnamed 
cardholders, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, 
and therefore denies them.  BANA admits that the letter sent to certain cardholders 
in connection with their claims included the language quoted in Paragraph 89, but 
denies that the quoted language includes the entirety of the language in the letter.  
BANA admits that it used a claim fraud filter, but denies that it did not investigate 
claims and provide provisional credits.  BANA denies the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 89. 
90. 
As to the allegations in Paragraph 90 which regard unnamed 
cardholders, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, 
and therefore denies them.  BANA admits that its correspondence with cardholders 
generally included a phone number that cardholders could use to contact BANA.  
BANA, however, lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
authenticity, references to or content and characterization of the “form letter” 
referenced in Paragraph 90, which was not attached to the SAMCC, and therefore 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3941     Page
27 of 214

 
28 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
denies allegations based on it.  BANA denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 
90. 
91. 
The allegations in Paragraph 91 state legal conclusions to which no 
response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
92. 
As to the allegations in Paragraph 92 which regard unnamed 
cardholders, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, 
and therefore denies them.  BANA denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 92. 
4. 
“The Bank’s Policy and Practice of Automatically and Indefinitely 
Freezing Cardholders’ Accounts When They Report Unauthorized 
Transactions, Based on a Highly Flawed ‘Claim Fraud Filter’” 
93. 
As to the allegations in Paragraph 93 which regard unnamed 
cardholders, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, 
and therefore denies them.  BANA admits that cardholders cannot access their funds 
when their Account is frozen or blocked.  BANA admits that it freezes and blocks 
Accounts as permitted under the Cardholder Agreement, including without prior 
notice, which prevents access to the balance in the Account during the duration of 
the freeze or block.  BANA denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 93, 
including that there was any representation that BANA would provide prior notice 
before a freeze or a block and that BANA “automatically and indefinitely” froze or 
blocked Accounts. 
94. 
As to the allegations in Paragraph 94 which regard unnamed 
cardholders, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, 
and therefore denies them.  BANA admits that it has frozen cardholders’ Accounts 
as permitted under the Cardholder Agreement.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the authenticity, references to, or content of 
the notices sent to unnamed cardholders referenced in Paragraph 94, which were not 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3942     Page
28 of 214

 
29 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
attached to the SAMCC, and therefore denies allegations based on them.  BANA 
denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 94. 
95. 
As to the allegations in Paragraph 95 which regard unnamed 
cardholders, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, 
and therefore denies them.  BANA admits that it has frozen cardholders’ Accounts 
as permitted under the Cardholder Agreement and has required certain cardholders 
to re-establish their identity and re-verify their eligibility with BANA or EDD, 
dependent on the context, as a condition of unfreezing their Account.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the authenticity, references to 
or content and characterization of the “State Auditor” statistics referenced in 
Paragraph 95, which were not attached to the SAMCC, and therefore denies 
allegations based on them.  BANA denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 95. 
96. 
As to the allegations in Paragraph 96 which regard unnamed 
cardholders, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, 
and therefore denies them.  BANA admits that it has frozen cardholders’ Accounts 
as permitted under the Cardholder Agreement and has required certain cardholders 
to re-establish their identity and re-verify their eligibility as a condition of unfreezing 
their Accounts.  BANA denies that it deprived cardholders of access to their EDD 
benefits, refused to process their fraud claims, or refused to refund their stolen 
money.  BANA further denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 96. 
5. 
“The Bank’s Policy and Practice of Denying Reasonable Customer 
Service to Cardholders Seeking Assistance with Fraud Claims and 
the Unfreezing of Accounts” 
97. 
BANA admits that cardholders called BANA regarding claims of 
allegedly unauthorized Account transactions, but BANA lacks information and 
knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the nature and outcome of those calls alleged 
in Paragraph 97 related to unnamed cardholders, and therefore denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3943     Page
29 of 214

 
30 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
98. 
BANA admits that, through its vendors, BANA hired thousands of new 
customer service agents for its prepaid call centers beginning in the fall of 2020 in 
response to the unprecedented spike in call volume immediately following the 
beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.  As to the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 98, including the allegation that the volume of EDD cardholders seeking 
assistance during the pandemic was “predictably large” and that the customer service 
agents are “not empowered to resolve fraud claims,” BANA denies them. 
99. 
As to the allegations in Paragraph 99 which regard unnamed putative 
class members, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, 
and therefore denies them.  BANA denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 99. 
100. As to the allegations in Paragraph 100 which regard unnamed putative 
class members, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, 
and therefore denies them.  BANA avers that BANA has frozen Accounts at EDD’s 
request, that information relating to the basis for certain Account freezes was solely 
in the possession of EDD, and that certain Accounts could not be unfrozen until EDD 
re-verified eligibility.  BANA denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 100. 
101. As to the allegations in Paragraph 101, which regard a purported 
statement by the EDD that is unattached to the SAMCC, BANA lacks knowledge 
and information sufficient to admit or deny, and therefore denies them.  As for the 
article referenced by a footnote in Paragraph 101, BANA states only that the article 
speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents, but does not admit that any 
of those contents are true or accurate. 
102. The allegations in Paragraph 102 state legal conclusions to which no 
response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
103. As to the allegations in Paragraph 103, which regard unnamed 
cardholders, BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny, 
and therefore denies them.  BANA denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3944     Page
30 of 214

 
31 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
103.  As for the article referenced by a footnote in Paragraph 103, BANA states only 
that the article speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents, but does not 
admit that any of those contents are true or accurate. 
104. BANA denies the allegations in Paragraph 104.  As for the article 
referenced by a footnote in Paragraph 104, BANA states only that the article speaks 
for itself and is the best evidence of its contents, but does not admit that any of those 
contents are true or accurate. 
105. BANA states that the 2015 Proposal, which was not attached to the 
SAMCC, speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content, and denies any 
characterization regarding representations it made that are inconsistent with its text.  
BANA denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 105. 
6. 
“The Court Preliminarily Enjoins the Bank’s Policies and 
Practices” 
106. BANA admits that, on January 14, 2021, Plaintiff Jennifer Yick filed an 
action against BANA, and that her case was later consolidated, on March 29, 2021, 
to include lawsuits brought by eight other Plaintiffs. 
107. To the extent Paragraph 107 references the Declaration of Melissa 
Gargagliano (“Declaration”), BANA states that the Declaration speaks for itself and 
is the best evidence of its content and denies any characterization inconsistent with 
the text of the Declaration.  As to all remaining allegations in Paragraph 107, BANA 
denies them. 
108. BANA admits that, on April 1, 2021, Plaintiffs in the nine consolidated 
Yick cases filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class 
Certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2).  BANA states, however, that its Opposition 
to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification 
is the best evidence of BANA’s position against the Motion and denies any 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3945     Page
31 of 214

 
32 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
characterization inconsistent with the text of that filing.  As to all remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 108, BANA denies them. 
109. BANA admits that, on May 17, 2021, the district court in Yick issued an 
Order Re Preliminary Injunction.  BANA states that this Order speaks for itself and 
is the best evidence of its contents and denies any characterization inconsistent with 
the text of the Order.  As to all remaining allegations in Paragraph 109, BANA denies 
them. 
110. BANA admits that, on June 1, 2021, the district court docketed an 
unsigned order (later noted on the docket as having been “filed in error”) which 
reflected the parties’ joint submission and avers that, on June 2, 2021, the district 
court entered a Corrected Preliminary Injunction.  See Case No. 3:21-cv-00376-VC, 
ECF Nos. 101, 103.  BANA states that the documents entered by the Court speak for 
themselves and are the best evidence of their contents and denies any characterization 
inconsistent with the text of those documents.  As to all remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 110, BANA denies them. 
7. 
“The Bank’s Policies and Practices Continue to Harm 
Cardholders” 
111. BANA admits that when an Account is “frozen” or “blocked,” the 
cardholder is unable to access the Account’s funds.  BANA states that the Preliminary 
Injunction speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents and denies any 
characterization inconsistent with the text of the Preliminary Injunction.  BANA 
further asserts that it ceased using the claim fraud filter to decision claims on June 9, 
2021, and that the Preliminary Injunction was lifted on April 3, 2024.  BANA denies 
all remaining allegations in Paragraph 111. 
112. BANA denies the allegations in Paragraph 112. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3946     Page
32 of 214

 
33 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
113. As to the allegations in Paragraph 113 regarding unnamed putative class 
members, BANA lacks information and knowledge sufficient to admit or deny them, 
and therefore denies them. 
G. 
Class Representatives Plaintiffs’ Allegations 
1. 
Jennifer Yick 
114. BANA admits that four transactions with DoorDash totaling over $400 
took place on Yick’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on November 2, 5, 8, and 16, 
2020, and that, subsequently, her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a balance of 
$0.70 in late November 2020, but denies that these transactions on her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in November 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA lacks knowledge 
and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 
114, and therefore denies them. 
115. BANA admits that other transactions took place on Yick’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in San Francisco, California around the same time as the 
transactions with DoorDash referenced in Paragraph 114.  BANA lacks knowledge 
and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 
115, and therefore denies them. 
116. BANA denies the allegations in Paragraph 116. 
117. BANA admits that Yick contacted BANA to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 
2020 and January 2021, and that she was transferred to different BANA prepaid debit 
card call center departments on some of her calls with BANA.  BANA denies that it 
has yet to credit Yick’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for the allegedly 
unauthorized transactions.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 117, and therefore denies them. 
118. BANA admits that Yick contacted BANA to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account between 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3947     Page
33 of 214

 
34 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
December 1, 2020 and December 3, 2020.  BANA admits that, on a December 1, 
2020 call, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told Yick that she 
would need to speak with the prepaid debit card claims department and to call back 
the following day.  BANA admits that Yick contacted BANA on December 2, 2020.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 118, and therefore denies them. 
119. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 119 regarding an unspecified call to BANA, and therefore 
denies them. 
120. BANA admits that Yick contacted BANA to inquire about her alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim on December 3, 2020, that the BANA prepaid debit 
card call center representative added notes to Yick’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card claims 
file regarding the four allegedly unauthorized transactions with DoorDash, and that 
the BANA prepaid debit card call center representative provided Yick with an email 
address that she could use to file a claim in the event she was unable to reach a prepaid 
debit card claims department representative.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 120, 
and therefore denies them. 
121. BANA states that the Cardholder Agreement, the “Quick Reference 
Guide” accompanying Yick’s Card, and the “EDD Prepaid Debit Card FAQ 
webpage” speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their content, and denies 
any characterization inconsistent with the text of the Cardholder Agreement, the 
“Quick Reference Guide” accompanying her Card, or the “EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
FAQ webpage.”  BANA admits that a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative provided Yick with an email address that she could use to file a claim 
in the event she was unable to reach a prepaid debit card claims department 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3948     Page
34 of 214

 
35 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
representative.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny 
the remaining allegations in Paragraph 121, and therefore denies them. 
122. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 122, and therefore denies them. 
123. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 123, and therefore denies them. 
124. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 124, and therefore denies them. 
125. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 125, and therefore denies them. 
126. BANA admits that Yick filed a putative class action lawsuit and moved 
for a preliminary injunction, and that the Yick court later granted in part and denied 
in part Plaintiffs’ Motion and entered the Preliminary Injunction.  See Case No. 3:21-
cv-00376-VC, ECF Nos. 101, 103.  BANA states that the documents entered by the 
Court speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents and denies any 
characterization inconsistent with the text of those documents.  BANA admits that it 
credited Yick’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account with $409.26 on December 20, 
2021.  BANA denies all other allegations in Paragraph 126. 
2. 
Vanessa Rivera 
127. BANA denies that V. Rivera began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in January 2020.  BANA 
lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 127, and therefore denies them. 
128. BANA admits that a transaction for an ATM withdrawal of $800 took 
place on V. Rivera’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on January 29, 2021, and 
that, subsequently, her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a balance of $4.17 on 
January 29, 2021, but denies that this transaction on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3949     Page
35 of 214

 
36 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 in January 2021 was unauthorized.  BANA admits that BANA sent V. 
Rivera a low balance alert for her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account via text message 
on January 29, 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 128, and therefore denies them. 
129. BANA admits that V. Rivera logged into her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account online on January 29, 2021.  BANA admits that transactions for an ATM 
balance inquiry and an ATM withdrawal of $800 took place on V. Rivera’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account on January 29, 2021, but denies that these transactions 
on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021 were unauthorized.  BANA 
admits that V. Rivera contacted BANA on January 29, 2021.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 129, and therefore denies them. 
130. BANA admits that V. Rivera contacted BANA and inquired about her 
alleged unauthorized transaction claim on February 4, 2021, and that, on the February 
4, 2021 call, the BANA prepaid debit card call center representative informed V. 
Rivera that the BANA prepaid debit card call center representative from the January 
29, 2021 call had put a “note” in V. Rivera’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account and 
sent her a new EDD Prepaid Debit Card, but inadvertently did not file an 
unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA admits that, on February 4, 2021, the BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative filed V. Rivera’s alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim and advised V. Rivera that the alleged unauthorized transaction 
claim was filed during their call.  BANA admits that it sent V. Rivera a letter dated 
February 5, 2021.  BANA states the letter speaks for itself and denies any allegations 
inconsistent with its contents.  The allegations in Paragraph 130 regarding BANA’s 
investigation of V. Rivera’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3950     Page
36 of 214

 
37 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 130, and therefore denies them. 
131. BANA admits that it sent a replacement EDD Prepaid Debit Card to V. 
Rivera, that V. Rivera contacted BANA to activate her EDD Prepaid Debit Card on 
February 6, 2021, and that a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told 
V. Rivera that her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had been frozen due to fraud.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 131, and therefore denies them. 
132. BANA admits that it sent V. Rivera a letter in February 2021 stating that 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had been frozen because there had been fraud 
on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA states that the letter itself is the 
best evidence of its content and denies any characterization inconsistent with the text 
of the letter.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 132, and therefore denies them. 
133. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 133 regarding unspecified phone calls during an unspecified 
time period, and therefore denies them. 
134. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 134, and therefore denies them. 
135. BANA admits that V. Rivera joined a putative class action lawsuit on 
April 1, 2021, and that V. Rivera submitted a declaration in support of the Yick 
plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification.  
BANA admits that it credited V. Rivera’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account with 
$800, and that it unfroze her Account.  BANA denies the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 135. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3951     Page
37 of 214

 
38 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
3. 
Candace Koole 
136. BANA admits that Koole received EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 136, 
and therefore denies them. 
137. BANA denies that Koole’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a 
balance of $7 on December 30, 2020, but avers that her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account had a balance of $7.37 on December 30, 2020.  BANA admits that Koole’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a balance of approximately $9,000 the week 
before December 30, 2020, and that multiple transactions for ATM withdrawals, 
from locations around Southern California, totaling $8,760 took place on her EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020, but denies that those transactions on 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA 
lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 137, and therefore denies them. 
138. BANA admits that Koole contacted BANA to submit an alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim on December 30, 2020, and that a BANA prepaid 
debit card call center representative suggested that Koole file a police report in 
support of her alleged unauthorized transaction claim, but denies that the BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative told Koole she was responsible for 
proving that she had not committed fraud or that a police report was required to 
support her alleged unauthorized transaction claim or for BANA to consider her 
alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA denies that it froze Koole’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account on December 30, 2020, but avers that it froze Koole’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on December 31, 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge 
and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 
138, and therefore denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3952     Page
38 of 214

 
39 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
139. BANA denies that there was a restriction on Koole’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account on December 30, 2020, and therefore denies that an account freeze 
prevented Koole from accessing her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account online on 
December 30, 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 139, and therefore denies them. 
140. BANA admits that it sent Koole a letter dated December 31, 2020.  
BANA states that the letter speaks for itself, and denies any allegations inconsistent 
with its contents.  The remaining allegations in Paragraph 140 state legal conclusions 
to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
141. BANA admits that Koole contacted BANA to inquire about her alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim and the freeze on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account after December 31, 2020, that the BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representatives referred her to EDD, and that BANA froze Koole’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account from December 31, 2020 to March 18, 2021.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 141 regarding unspecified calls with BANA and EDD, and therefore 
denies them. 
142. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 142, and therefore denies them. 
143. BANA admits that Koole joined a putative class action lawsuit on April 
1, 2021, and that Koole submitted a declaration in support of the Yick plaintiffs’ 
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification.  BANA 
admits that it permanently credited Koole’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account with 
$8,760 on April 6, 2021, and sent her a letter dated April 6, 2021.  BANA states that 
the letter speaks for itself, and denies any allegations inconsistent with its contents.  
BANA denies that access to Koole’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was not 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3953     Page
39 of 214

 
40 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
restored until early May 2021, and avers that it unfroze Koole’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account on March 18, 2021, and that it unblocked Koole’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account on April 5, 2021.  BANA denies the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 143. 
4. 
Azuri Moon 
144. BANA admits that two transactions for ATM withdrawals of $800 and 
$1,000 took place on Moon’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on October 19, 2020 
and October 20, 2020 respectively, but denies that those transactions on his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in October 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies that 
Moon’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, subsequently, had “virtually no money” 
in it.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 144, and therefore denies them. 
145. BANA denies that Moon contacted BANA to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on October 21, 
2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 145, and therefore denies them. 
146. BANA denies that Moon had not received “any communication” from 
BANA between October 21, 2020 and mid-November 2020.  BANA admits that 
Moon contacted BANA to inquire about his alleged unauthorized transaction claim 
in mid-November 2020, and that, on a mid-November call, a BANA prepaid debit 
card call center representative informed Moon that his alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim had been closed, and suggested that he file a police report and to 
submit a written statement to BANA, but denies that the BANA prepaid debit card 
call center representative told Moon he was responsible for proving that he had not 
committed fraud or that a police report was required to support his alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim or for BANA to consider his alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim.  BANA denies that a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3954     Page
40 of 214

 
41 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
representative told Moon that he was liable for the allegedly unauthorized 
transactions or that BANA would not be returning the money.  The allegations in 
Paragraph 146 regarding BANA’s investigation of Moon’s alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the 
extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 146, 
and therefore denies them. 
147. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 147, and therefore denies them. 
148. BANA denies that Moon had not received any communications from 
BANA from mid-November 2020 to mid-December 2020.  BANA admits that Moon 
contacted BANA in mid-December 2020 regarding his alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim.  BANA denies that, in a mid-December 2020 call, a BANA prepaid 
debit card call center representative told Moon that it had never received his initial 
fax, that he was mistakenly given his claim number as his case number, that his fax 
reflected this mistake which derailed his alleged unauthorized transaction claim, and 
that his alleged unauthorized transaction claim would not be reconsidered until this 
was corrected.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny 
the remaining allegations in Paragraph 148, and therefore denies them. 
149. BANA admits that it froze Moon’s EDD Prepaid Debit Account in late 
December 2020.  BANA denies that Moon’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim 
was unresolved.  BANA admits that Moon contacted BANA while his EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account was frozen between December 17, 2020 and March 18, 2021, 
and that, on a call during this time, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told Moon that BANA could not reconsider Moon’s alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim until his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
unfrozen.  BANA denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 149. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3955     Page
41 of 214

 
42 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
150. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 150 regarding unspecified calls, and therefore denies them. 
151. BANA admits that Moon joined a putative class action lawsuit on April 
1, 2021, and that Moon submitted a declaration in support of the Yick plaintiffs’ 
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification.  BANA 
admits that it credited Moon’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account with $1,800 on 
April 5, 2021.  BANA denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 151. 
5. 
Roland Oosthuizen 
152. BANA admits that five ATM withdrawals of $1,000, totaling $5,000, 
took place daily on Oosthuizen’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account between 
September 24 and September 28, 2020 in the Los Angeles area, but denies that these 
transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020 were 
unauthorized.  BANA admits that Oosthuizen successfully logged into his online 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on September 28, 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge 
and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 
152, and therefore denies them. 
153. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 153, and therefore denies them. 
154. BANA admits that it did not send Oosthuizen an alert regarding the 
transactions referenced in Paragraph 152.  BANA denies that the transactions 
referenced in Paragraph 152 were unauthorized, and denies that Oosthuizen would 
not have been able to view the transactions when he logged into his EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account online.  BANA states that the Cardholder Agreement speaks for 
itself and denies any characterization inconsistent with its contents.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 154, and therefore denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3956     Page
42 of 214

 
43 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
155. BANA admits that Oosthuizen suspended his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
online on September 29, 2020.  BANA denies that Oosthuizen contacted BANA to 
report allegedly unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
on September 30, 2020, but avers that Oosthuizen contacted BANA to report 
allegedly unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on 
September 29, 2020.  BANA admits that, on a September 29, 2020 call, a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative helped Oosthuizen to file an alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim, but denies that the BANA prepaid debit card call 
center representative told Oosthuizen that he should wait to hear back from BANA 
regarding his alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 155, 
and therefore denies them. 
156. BANA admits that BANA sent Oosthuizen a letter dated October 1, 
2020.  BANA states that the letter speaks for itself, and denies any allegations 
inconsistent with its contents.  The remaining allegations in Paragraph 156 state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them. 
157. BANA admits that Oosthuizen contacted BANA regarding his alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim between October and November 2020.  BANA admits 
that, on a October 14, 2020 call, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative, named Tara, advised him that his alleged unauthorized transaction 
claim would be “escalated”, and that the BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative suggested that he send in additional documentation to support his 
request for reconsideration of his alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA 
lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 157, and therefore denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3957     Page
43 of 214

 
44 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
158. BANA admits that BANA received a facsimile from Oosthuizen on 
November 5, 2020.  BANA states that the facsimile speaks for itself, and denies any 
allegations inconsistent with its contents.  BANA admits that it did not provide 
Oosthuizen a temporary credit after it had closed his alleged unauthorized transaction 
claim in October 2020, but BANA denies that it failed to provide Oosthuizen’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account with any credit for his alleged unauthorized transaction 
claim.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 158 regarding Oosthuizen’s faxing and receipt of any 
documents from BANA and the hardship Oosthuizen alleges that he experienced, and 
therefore denies them.  The remaining allegations in Paragraph 158 state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them. 
159. BANA admits that Oosthuizen filed a putative class action lawsuit 
against BANA on January 26, 2021.  BANA admits that it credited Oosthuizen’s 
Account with $5,000 on January 27, 2021, and that BANA sent a letter dated January 
27, 2021.  BANA states that the letter speaks for itself and denies any allegations 
inconsistent with its contents.  BANA denies that it did not pay any interest on the 
$5,000 credit to Oosthuizen’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account. 
6. 
Rosemary Mathews 
160. BANA admits that an ATM withdrawal at Bank of America of $1,000 
took place on Mathews’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on October 12, 2020, 
and that her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, subsequently, had a balance of less 
than $500, but denies that this transaction on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
in October 2020 was unauthorized.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 160, and therefore 
denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3958     Page
44 of 214

 
45 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
161. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 161, and therefore denies them. 
162. BANA admits that it did not send Mathews an alert regarding the 
transaction referenced in Paragraph 160, that Mathews successfully logged onto her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account online on October 18, 2020, and that Mathews’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a balance of less than $500 at the start of 
October 18, 2020.  BANA denies that the ATM withdrawal referenced in Paragraph 
162 was unauthorized, and denies that Mathews would not have been able to view 
the transaction when she logged into her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account online.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 162, and therefore denies them. 
163. BANA admits that, on October 18, 2020, Mathews contacted BANA to 
report allegedly unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, 
and that, on that October 18, 2020 call, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told Mathews to call back when the prepaid debit card claims 
department was open.  BANA admits that, on October 19, 2020, Mathews contacted 
BANA to file an alleged unauthorized transaction claim, and that, on that October 
19, 2020 call, Mathews filed an alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 
163, and therefore denies them. 
164. BANA admits that it sent Mathews a letter dated October 20, 2020.  
BANA states that the letter speaks for itself and denies any allegations inconsistent 
with its contents.  The remaining allegations in Paragraph 164 state legal conclusions 
to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
165. BANA admits that Mathews contacted BANA in November and 
December 2020, and January and February 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3959     Page
45 of 214

 
46 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 165, 
and therefore denies them. 
166. BANA admits that BANA received a facsimile from Mathews on 
November 5, 2020 and that BANA did not provide Mathews a temporary credit.  
BANA states that the facsimile speaks for itself, and denies any allegations 
inconsistent with its contents.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 166, and therefore denies them. 
167. BANA admits that, on December 23, 2020, Mathews contacted the 
Bank regarding a freeze placed on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on 
December 17, 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 167, and therefore denies them. 
168. BANA admits that Mathews filed a putative class action lawsuit against 
BANA on January 26, 2021.  BANA admits that it sent Mathews a letter dated 
January 27, 2021, and that BANA credited Mathews EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account with $1,000 on January 27, 2021.  BANA states that the letter speaks for 
itself and denies any allegations inconsistent with its contents. BANA denies the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 168. 
169. BANA admits that Mathews’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
frozen between December 17, 2020 and February 10, 2021.  BANA admits the letter 
it sent referenced in Paragraph 168 was dated January 27, 2021.  BANA states that 
the letter speaks for itself, and denies any allegations inconsistent with its contents.  
BANA denies that it did not pay any interest on the $1,000 credit to Mathews’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 169, and therefore denies them. 
170. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 170, and therefore denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3960     Page
46 of 214

 
47 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
7. 
Carlos Rodriguez 
171. BANA admits that C. Rodriguez received EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card.  BANA denies that EDD funded 
C. Rodriguez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account with $900 every two weeks while 
he was eligible for EDD unemployment benefits.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 171, 
and therefore denies them. 
172. BANA denies that C. Rodriguez contacted BANA to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on or about 
December 17, 2020.  BANA admits that an ATM withdrawal of $230 took place on 
C. Rodriguez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on December 10, 2020, and that 
multiple ATM balance inquiries including one on November 30, 2020 and others in 
December 2020 took place on C. Rodriguez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but 
denies that the December 10, 2020 transaction on C. Rodriguez’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was unauthorized, and denies that the November 30, 2020 and 
December 2020 balance inquiries were conducted by some “unidentified person(s)”.  
BANA denies that an ATM withdrawal of $900 took place on C. Rodriguez’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account on December 17, 2020, but avers that an ATM 
withdrawal of $900 took place on C. Rodriguez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
on December 18, 2020 in the Los Angeles area.  BANA denies that the December 
18, 2020 ATM withdrawal on C. Rodriguez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
unauthorized.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny 
the remaining allegations in Paragraph 172, and therefore denies them. 
173. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 173 regarding unspecified phone calls during an unspecified 
time period, and therefore denies them.  BANA admits that it froze C. Rodriguez’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3961     Page
47 of 214

 
48 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 173, and therefore 
denies them. 
174. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 174, and therefore denies them. 
175. BANA admits that C. Rodriguez filed a putative class action lawsuit 
against BANA in the Northern District of California in January 2021.  BANA admits 
that it unfroze C. Rodriguez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on March 18, 2021, 
and that BANA unblocked C. Rodriguez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account after 
he called in and authenticated his identity with a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative in April 2021.  BANA admits it sent Rodriguez a letter in March 2021.  
BANA states that the letter speaks for itself, and denies any allegations inconsistent 
with its contents.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 175, and therefore denies them. 
176. BANA denies that it notified C. Rodriguez of a “temporary credit” to 
his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account via a letter dated April 20, 2021.  BANA admits 
that it permanently credited C. Rodriguez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on 
April 22, 2021.  BANA admits that BANA filed its opposition to the motion for 
preliminary injunction on April 20, 2021 (see Yick, Dkt. No. 72), that BANA re-filed 
its opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction on April 23, 2021 (see Yick, 
Dkt. No. 76), and that, in BANA’s re-filed opposition to the motion for preliminary 
injunction, BANA reported that C. Rodriguez’s “claim was paid on April 22, 2021” 
(see Yick, Dkt. No. 76-16 at 5, ¶22).  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 176, and therefore 
denies them. 
8. 
J. Michael Willrich 
177. BANA admits that transactions totaling approximately $5,000 took 
place on Willrich’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in late September and early 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3962     Page
48 of 214

 
49 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
October 2020, but denies that these transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in late September and early October 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA 
admits that it did not send Willrich an alert regarding these transactions, but denies 
that Willrich would not have been able to view the allegedly unauthorized 
transactions when he logged into his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account online.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 177, and therefore denies them. 
178. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 178, and therefore denies them. 
179. BANA admits Willrich contacted BANA in October and November 
2020 and January 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit 
or deny the allegations in Paragraph 179 regarding unspecified phone calls during an 
unspecified time period, and therefore denies them. 
180. BANA admits that Willrich contacted BANA in October 2020 and filed 
an alleged unauthorized transaction claim on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, 
but denies that the transactions were unauthorized.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 180 regarding an 
unspecified phone call during an unspecified time period, and therefore denies them. 
181. BANA admits that it sent Willrich a letter in October 2020.  BANA 
states that the letter speaks for itself and denies any allegations inconsistent with its 
contents.  The remaining allegations in Paragraph 181 state legal conclusions to 
which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
182. BANA admits that Willrich contacted BANA to inquire about his 
alleged unauthorized transaction claim in early November 2020.  BANA admits that, 
on the early November 2020 call, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told Willrich that his alleged unauthorized transaction claim was 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3963     Page
49 of 214

 
50 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
closed as a result of a “glitch” in the system, and that the BANA prepaid debit card 
call center representative told Willrich that BANA would submit a complaint and 
reconsider Willrich’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 182, and therefore denies them. 
183. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 183, and therefore denies them. 
184. BANA admits that it credited Willrich’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account on January 12, 2021, and avers that BANA sent Willrich a letter dated the 
same day.  BANA states that the letter speaks for itself, and denies any allegations 
inconsistent with its contents.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 184, and therefore denies them. 
185. BANA admits that Willrich contacted BANA to inquire about a 
restriction on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on January 14 and 15, 2021.  
BANA denies that it placed any restriction on or froze Willrich’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in January or February 2021.  BANA admits that multiple transactions 
for electronic funds transfers took place on Willrich’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in or after January 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient 
to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 185, and therefore denies 
them. 
186. BANA admits that Willrich filed a putative class action lawsuit against 
BANA on January 22, 2021.  BANA denies that it ever placed any restriction on or 
froze Willrich’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 186, 
and therefore denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3964     Page
50 of 214

 
51 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
9. 
Lindsay McClure 
187. BANA admits that a transaction for $1,003 took place on McClure’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on November 30, 2020, but denies that this 
transaction on McClure’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020 was 
unauthorized.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny 
the allegations in Paragraph 187 regarding unspecified phone calls during an 
unspecified time period, and therefore denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 187, 
and therefore denies them. 
188. BANA admits that McClure contacted BANA to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on December 1, 
2020, but denies that unauthorized transactions took place on her EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account.  BANA admits that, on the December 1, 2020 call, a BANA prepaid 
debit card call center representative told her that an investigation into her alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim could take up to 45 days.  BANA admits that it sent 
McClure a letter dated December 2, 2020.  BANA states that the letter speaks for 
itself and denies any allegations inconsistent with its contents.  The allegations in 
Paragraph 188 regarding BANA’s investigation into McClure’s alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the 
extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 188, 
and therefore denies them. 
189. BANA admits that McClure contacted BANA multiple times in 
December 2020 regarding her alleged unauthorized transaction claim, and that during 
one of those calls a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her 
BANA was investigating her alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3965     Page
51 of 214

 
52 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
189 regarding unspecified phone calls during an unspecified time period, and 
therefore denies them. 
190. BANA admits that it froze McClure’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
on December 17, 2020, but denies that McClure did not receive notice of the freeze 
on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA admits that McClure contacted 
BANA to inquire about the freeze on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on 
December 20, 2020.  BANA admits that, on the December 20, 2020 call, a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative told McClure that her EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was frozen due to fraud, and denies that this statement was false.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations 
in Paragraph 190 regarding unspecified phone calls during an unspecified time 
period, and therefore denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 190, and therefore 
denies them. 
191. BANA admits that McClure filed a putative class action lawsuit against 
BANA on January 25, 2021.  BANA admits that it credited McClure’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account with $1,003 on January 27, 2021, and that BANA sent McClure 
a letter dated January 27, 2021.  BANA states that the letter speaks for itself, and 
denies any allegations inconsistent with its contents.  BANA admits that it unfroze 
McClure’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account before the end of March 2021.  BANA 
lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 191, and therefore denies them. 
[Removed] 
192. [Removed] 
193. [Removed] 
194. [Removed] 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3966     Page
52 of 214

 
53 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
10. 
Clara Cajas 
195. BANA admits that an ATM withdrawal of $700 took place on Cajas’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on January 12, 2021, but denies that this 
transaction on Cajas’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021 was 
unauthorized.  BANA admits that Cajas contacted BANA to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on January 12, 
2021, and that BANA issued Cajas a new EDD Prepaid Debit Card on January 13, 
2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 195, and therefore denies them. 
196. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 196 regarding an unspecified phone call during an 
unspecified time period, and therefore denies them.  BANA admits that it froze 
Cajas’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on January 14, 2021.  BANA admits that 
it sent Cajas a letter dated January 14, 2021.  BANA states that the letter speaks for 
itself and denies any allegations inconsistent with its contents.  The remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 196 state conclusions of law to which no response is 
required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
197. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 197 regarding an unspecified phone call during an 
unspecified time period, and therefore denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 197, 
and therefore denies them. 
198. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 198 regarding unspecified phone calls during an unspecified 
time period, and therefore denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 198, and therefore 
denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3967     Page
53 of 214

 
54 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
199. BANA admits that Cajas and the other plaintiffs in the consolidated Yick 
action filed their Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class 
Certification on April 1, 2021.  BANA admits that it reconsidered Cajas’s alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim in April 2021, and that it permanently credited 
Cajas’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account with $700 on April 28, 2021.  BANA 
denies that it unfroze Cajas’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on April 28, 2021, 
but avers it unfroze her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on March 18, 2021, and 
unblocked her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on April 20, 2021  BANA further 
denies that Cajas’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had been frozen for more than 
three months as of April 28, 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 199, and therefore 
denies them. 
11. 
Stephanie Smith 
200. BANA admits that S. Smith began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in June 2020.  BANA 
admits that multiple transactions for electronic funds transfers took place on S. 
Smith’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA admits that three transactions for 
Doordash which totaled $225.84 took place on S. Smith’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account on November 23, 27, and 30, 2020, but denies that these transactions on S. 
Smith’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020 were unauthorized.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 200, and therefore denies them. 
201. BANA admits that S. Smith contacted BANA to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on December 23, 
2020.  BANA admits that, on the December 23, 2020 call, a BANA prepaid debit 
card call center representative spoke with S. Smith regarding transactions on her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, that the BANA prepaid debit card call center 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3968     Page
54 of 214

 
55 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
representative verified her identity, and that S. Smith provided her Social Security 
Number as part of this identity verification process.  BANA denies that S. Smith 
answered all of the BANA prepaid debit card call center representative’s security 
questions to BANA’s satisfaction, but avers that S. Smith could not answer her 
security question and therefore changed the question and answer on the call after she 
authenticated with a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative via a 
different method.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 201, and therefore denies them. 
202. The allegations in Paragraph 202 regarding BANA’s alleged failure to 
conduct a good-faith investigation state conclusions of law to which no response is 
required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 
202, and therefore denies them. 
12. 
Alan Karam 
203. BANA admits that Karam began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in May 2020.  BANA 
admits that many transactions took place on Karam’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account from June to August 2020.  BANA denies that all the transactions that took 
place on Karam’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account took place in California, and 
that “all or virtually all” these transactions that took place on Karam’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account were for amounts less than $100.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 203, 
and therefore denies them. 
204. BANA admits Karam successfully logged into his online EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account on August 21, 2020.  BANA admits that transactions for two 
purchases from Target of $954 each, one purchase from Target of $442.69, and a 
purchase from McDonald’s of $4.34 all took place on Karam’s Account in New York 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3969     Page
55 of 214

 
56 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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, but denies that these transactions on Karam’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
were unauthorized.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 204, and therefore denies them. 
205. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 205, and therefore denies them. 
206. The allegations in Paragraph 206 state legal conclusions to which no 
response is required.  To the extent that a response is required, BANA denies them.  
BANA denies that it failed to take any of the actions proposed by Karam in Paragraph 
206. 
207. BANA admits that Karam contacted BANA to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on August 21, 
2020, and that, on the August 21, 2020 call, the BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative helped Karam to file an alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  
BANA admits that it temporarily credited Karam’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
with the amount of the allegedly unauthorized transactions by August 24, 2020.  The 
allegations in Paragraph 207 relating to EFTA and Regulation E state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent that a response is 
required, BANA denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 207, and therefore denies them. 
208. BANA admits that it debited Karam’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
by $2,355.03 on November 17, 2020, and that, subsequently, Karam’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account had a negative balance.  BANA denies that it debited Karam’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account without notice or explanation.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 208, and therefore denies them. 
209. BANA denies that Karam contacted BANA “immediately,” but admits 
that Karam contacted BANA on November 22, 2020, and that a BANA prepaid debit 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3970     Page
56 of 214

 
57 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
card call center representative told him that he would need to call back during the 
prepaid debit card claims department’s hours of operation.  BANA states that the 
Cardholder Agreement and BANA’s contract with EDD speak for themselves, and 
deny any allegations in consistent with their contents. 
210. BANA denies that Karam contacted BANA at 6:30 AM on November 
23, 2020, and therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 210 regarding the 
substance of such a call, but admits that he contacted BANA that day.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 210, and therefore denies them. 
211. BANA admits that Karam contacted BANA on November 23, 2020.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 211, and therefore denies them. 
212. BANA admits that Karam contacted BANA on November 23, 2020 and 
that, during one of these phone calls, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative suggested Karam file a police report and submit a written statement 
about the alleged unauthorized transactions, but denies that the BANA prepaid debit 
card call center representative told Karam that filing a police report or submitting a 
written statement was required to support his alleged unauthorized transaction claim 
or to have that alleged unauthorized transaction claim considered by BANA.  BANA 
lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 212, and therefore denies them. 
213. BANA admits that it reconsidered one of Karam’s alleged unauthorized 
transaction claims in December 2020, and that, subsequently, BANA closed Karam’s 
alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  The allegations in Paragraph 213 regarding 
BANA’s investigation into Karam’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim state 
legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
required, BANA denies them.  BANA denies that it never credited Karam’s EDD 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3971     Page
57 of 214

 
58 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
Prepaid Debit Card Account after November 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 213 regarding 
unspecified calls to BANA, and therefore denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 213, 
and therefore denies them. 
214. BANA admits that counsel for Karam and S. Smith sent a letter dated 
January 25, 2021 via FedEx that was delivered on January 26, 2021.  As for the letter 
referenced in Paragraph 214, BANA states only that the letter speaks for itself and is 
the best evidence of its contents, but does not admit that any of those contents are 
true or accurate.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny 
the remaining allegations in Paragraph 214, and therefore denies them. 
215. BANA avers that it reconsidered both of Karam’s alleged unauthorized 
transaction claims, and admits that it credited $2,355.03 to Karam’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account on January 28, 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 215, and therefore 
denies them. 
[Removed] 
216. [Removed] 
217. [Removed] 
218. [Removed] 
219. [Removed] 
220. [Removed] 
221. [Removed] 
222. [Removed] 
223. [Removed] 
224. [Removed] 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3972     Page
58 of 214

 
59 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
13. 
Brian Wiggins 
225. BANA admits that transactions totaling $1,512 took place on Wiggins’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020 in Santa Rosa, California and 
Atlanta, Georgia, but denies that these transactions on Wiggins’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in November 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 225, 
and therefore denies them. 
226. BANA admits that Wiggins contacted BANA to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 
2020.  BANA admits that it froze Wiggins’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on 
December 17, 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the allegations in Paragraph 226 regarding an unspecified call to BANA, and 
therefore denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit 
or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 226, and therefore denies them. 
227. BANA denies that Wiggins received no written or formal 
communication from BANA regarding his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account freeze.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations 
in Paragraph 227 regarding unspecified calls to BANA, and therefore denies them.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 227, and therefore denies them. 
228. BANA admits that Wiggins filed a putative class action lawsuit against 
BANA.  BANA admits that it permanently credited Wiggins’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account with $1,512 on May 25, 2021, and that BANA sent Wiggins a letter 
dated May 26, 2021.  BANA states that the letter speaks for itself, and denies any 
allegations inconsistent with its contents.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraphs 228, and therefore 
denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3973     Page
59 of 214

 
60 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
14. 
Jonathan Smith 
229. BANA admits that J. Smith received EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 229, 
and therefore denies them. 
230. BANA admits that two transactions, one for  $1,701.78 and one for $20, 
took place on J. Smith’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in July 2020, but denies 
that these transactions on J. Smith’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in July 2020 
were unauthorized.  BANA admits it did not send J. Smith an alert regarding these 
transactions.  BANA denies that, subsequently, J. Smith’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account had a negative balance after these two allegedly unauthorized transactions 
took place on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 230, 
and therefore denies them. 
231. BANA denies that J. Smith contacted BANA to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in the fall of 2020, 
but avers that J. Smith contacted BANA to report allegedly unauthorized transactions 
on his Account in July 2020.  BANA admits that it temporarily credited J. Smith’s 
Account with $1,721.78 in August 2020, but denies that the temporary credit was 
made permanent before it was debited in October 2020.  BANA denies that J. Smith 
was a victim of fraud, and denies that the transactions referenced in Paragraph 231 
were unauthorized. 
232. BANA admits that it debited $1,721.78 from J. Smith’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account on October 4, 2020, but denies that it debited a “permanent 
credit” that had previously been provided to J. Smith.  The allegations regarding 
BANA’s investigation into J. Smith’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim in 
Paragraph 232 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  BANA lacks 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3974     Page
60 of 214

 
61 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 232, and therefore denies them. 
233. BANA admits that it debited $1,721.78 from J. Smith’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account on October 4, 2020, that J. Smith’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account balance was subsequently negative, and that subsequent EDD 
unemployment benefits were applied to his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account and 
added to the balance.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 233, and therefore denies them. 
234. BANA admits that it froze J. Smith’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
from September 28 to October 4, 2020, and avers that J. Smith’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was unfrozen on October 4, 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 234 regarding 
unspecified calls to BANA, and therefore denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 234, 
and therefore denies them. 
235. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 235, and therefore denies them. 
236. BANA admits that it credited J. Smith’s Account with $1,721.78 in 
January 2021, and that it froze his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for a period of 
time.  BANA denies it committed any “unlawful acts and omissions,” that it froze J. 
Smith’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account “without providing any clear process or 
recourse for J. Smith to regain access,” or that it deprived him of funds associated 
with alleged unauthorized transaction claims.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 236, 
and therefore denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3975     Page
61 of 214

 
62 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
15. 
Alex Yuan 
237. BANA admits that Yuan received EDD unemployment benefits through 
a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 237, and therefore 
denies them. 
238. BANA denies that two transactions for ATM withdrawals of $900 each 
took place on Yuan’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account located in the Los Angeles 
area in or around August 2020, but avers that two ATM withdrawals of $900 each 
took place on Yuan’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account located in the Los Angeles 
area on August 24, 2020 and September 7, 2020 respectively.  BANA denies that 
these transactions on Yuan’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in August and 
September 2020 were unauthorized. 
239. BANA admits that Yuan contacted BANA to file an alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim on September 10, 2020.  BANA admits that it credited 
Yuan’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account with $1,800 in September 2020.  BANA 
denies that it notified Yuan that its credit to Yuan’s Account was made “permanent” 
in October 2020.  BANA denies that it determined Yuan had been the victim of fraud, 
and that it had not authorized the transactions identified in Paragraph 238.  BANA 
lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 239, and therefore denies them. 
240. BANA admits that it debited $1,800 from Yuan’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account on October 4, 2020.  BANA denies that this debit occurred “without 
any notice or explanation,” and avers that it sent Yuan a letter dated October 3, 2020.  
BANA states that this letter speaks for itself and denies any allegations inconsistent 
with its contents.  The allegations in Paragraph 240 regarding BANA’s investigation 
of Yuan’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim state legal conclusions to which no 
response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3976     Page
62 of 214

 
63 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 240, and therefore denies them. 
241. BANA admits that it debited $1,800 from Yuan’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account on October 4, 2020, that Yuan’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
balance was subsequently negative, and that subsequent EDD unemployment 
benefits were applied to his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account and added to the 
balance.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 241, and therefore denies them. 
242. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 242 regarding unspecified contacts, and therefore denies 
them.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 242 regarding unspecified calls to BANA, and therefore 
denies them. 
243. BANA admits that a withdrawal of $900 took place on Yuan’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account on October 26, 2020, but denies that this transaction on 
Yuan’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on October 26, 2020 was unauthorized.  
BANA admits that Yuan contacted BANA to file an alleged unauthorized transaction 
claim on October 28, 2020.  BANA admits that, subsequently, Yuan transferred each 
of his EDD benefits from his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account to an external account 
starting in November 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 243, and therefore denies them. 
244. BANA admits that it froze Yuan’s Account on December 17, 2020, but 
denies that Yuan did not receive notice of the freeze on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account.  BANA admits that it unfroze Yuan’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on 
January 15, 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 244, and therefore denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3977     Page
63 of 214

 
64 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
245. BANA admits that a preliminary injunction was obtained in the Yick 
action on May 17, 2021.  BANA denies that it did not credit Yuan’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account with $1,800 until on or about March 9, 2022, and avers that 
BANA reconsidered Yuan’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim, and that BANA 
credited Yuan’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account with $1,800 on November 10, 
2020.  BANA admits that it sent Yuan a letter dated November 9, 2020..  BANA 
states that the letter speaks for itself, and denies any allegations inconsistent with its 
contents.  BANA further avers that it credited Yuan’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account again with $1,800 on March 9, 2022, which was a duplicate credit that has 
not been rescinded or debited by BANA.  BANA denies that it did not pay any 
interest on the $1,800 credit to Yuan’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA 
denies that it did not credit Yuan $900 in connection with his other alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim, and further denies that it did not pay any interest on 
the $900 credit.  The remaining allegations in Paragraph 245 state legal conclusions 
to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
16. 
Jory Zoelle 
246. BANA admits that two transactions totaling $1,052.60 at a Target retail 
store located in New Jersey took place on Zoelle’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
on July 23, 2020, but denies that these transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in July 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Zoelle contacted 
BANA to file an alleged unauthorized transaction claim on July 25, 2020.  BANA 
denies that it credited Zoelle’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account with $1,052.60 in 
or about September 2020, but avers that it credited Zoelle’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account with $1,052.60 on August 3, 2020.  BANA denies that it froze Zoelle’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account for “several weeks.”  The allegations in Paragraph 246 
regarding BANA’s basis for freezing Zoelle’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account state 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3978     Page
64 of 214

 
65 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
required, BANA denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 246, and therefore denies them. 
247. BANA admits that it debited Zoelle’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
for $1,052.60 on October 9, 2020, and that, subsequently, Zoelle’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account had a negative balance.  BANA admits that subsequent EDD 
unemployment benefits were applied to her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account and 
added to the balance.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the allegations in Paragraph 247, and therefore denies them. 
248. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 248 regarding unspecified calls to BANA, and therefore 
denies them.  BANA denies that BANA closed Zoelle’s alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim “months later.”  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient 
to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraphs 248, and therefore denies 
them. 
249. BANA admits that it credited Zoelle’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account with $1,052.60 on January 20, 2021, but denies that it did not provide 
interest on this credit.  The remaining allegations in Paragraph 249 state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them. 
17. 
Cindy Baker 
250. BANA admits that two ATM withdrawals of $1,000 each took place on 
Baker’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on February 9 and February 10, 2021 
respectively, but denies that these transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in February 2021 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Baker contacted 
BANA to file an alleged unauthorized transaction claim on February 10, 2021.  
BANA denies that BANA froze her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on February 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3979     Page
65 of 214

 
66 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
10, 2021, but avers that BANA froze her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account from 
February 11, 2021 until March 18, 2021.  BANA states that the Cardholder 
Agreement speaks for itself, and denies any allegations inconsistent with its contents. 
251. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 251 regarding unspecified calls to BANA, and therefore 
denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny 
the remaining allegations in Paragraph 251, and therefore denies them. 
252. BANA admits that it initially denied Baker’s alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim.  The remaining allegations in Paragraph 252 state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them. 
253. BANA admits that Baker filed a putative class action lawsuit against 
BANA.  BANA admits that it credited Baker’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
with $2,000 on June 2, 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 253, and therefore denies them. 
18. 
Ursula Auburn 
254. BANA admits that six transactions for purchases at a Walgreens in New 
York took place on Auburn’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on July 31, 2020 for 
$507.03, $511.38, $455.95, $505.95, $505.95, and $505.95 respectively, but denies 
that these transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in July 2020 were 
unauthorized.  BANA admits that Auburn contacted BANA to file an alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim on July 31, 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 254, 
and therefore denies them. 
255. BANA admits that it temporarily credited Auburn’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account for the amount of each of the allegedly unauthorized transactions 
referenced in Paragraph 254 on August 13, 2020.  BANA admits that it debited those 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3980     Page
66 of 214

 
67 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
temporary credits from Auburn’s account on October 9, 2020, that, subsequently, 
Auburn’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a negative balance, and that 
subsequent EDD benefits were applied to her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account and 
added to the balance.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the remaining allegations in Paragraphs 255, and therefore denies them. 
256. The allegations in Paragraph 256 regarding BANA’s investigation of 
Auburn’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim state legal conclusions to which no 
response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 256, and therefore denies them. 
257. BANA admits that, on October 27, 2020, it credited Auburn’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account for the amount of each of the allegedly unauthorized 
transactions.  BANA admits that a reporter from ABC contacted BANA regarding 
Auburn.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 257, and therefore denies them. 
[Removed] 
258. [Removed] 
259. [Removed] 
260. [Removed] 
19. 
Kuang Ting Chong 
261. BANA admits that a transaction for $1,000 took place on Chong’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account on July 20, 2020, but denies that this transaction on his 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in July 2020 was unauthorized.  BANA admits 
that Chong contacted BANA to file an alleged unauthorized transaction claim on July 
20, 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 261, and therefore denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3981     Page
67 of 214

 
68 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
262. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 262, and therefore denies them. 
263. BANA admits that it temporarily credited Chong’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account with $1,000 on July 31, 2020, and that BANA sent him a letter dated 
September 2, 2020.  BANA states that the letter speaks for itself, and denies any 
allegations inconsistent with its contents. 
264. BANA admits that it sent Chong a letter dated October 2, 2020.  BANA 
further states that the letter speaks for itself, and denies any allegations inconsistent 
with its contents.  BANA admits that it debited Chong’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account for $1,000 on October 4, 2020, and that, subsequently, Chong’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account had a negative balance.  BANA admits that subsequent 
EDD benefits were applied to his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account and added to the 
balance.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 264, and therefore denies them. 
265. BANA denies that Chong’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had 
transactions with a description that included the “State of CA EDD Unemployment.”  
The remaining allegations in Paragraph 265 regarding this transaction description 
state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
required, BANA denies them. 
266. BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
allegations in Paragraph 266 regarding unspecified contacts to BANA, and therefore 
denies them.  BANA denies that Chong contacted BANA on October 15, 2020, but 
avers that Chong contacted BANA on October 14, 2020.  BANA denies that, on the 
October 14, 2020 call, the BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told 
Chong his issue would be resolved “in the order it was received,” but avers that, on 
the October 14, 2020 call, the BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
told Chong that BANA was working on “escalations in the same order that they’re 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3982     Page
68 of 214

 
69 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
being received.”  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny 
the allegations in Paragraph 266, and therefore denies them. 
267. BANA admits that Chong filed a putative class action lawsuit against 
BANA in November 2020.  BANA admits that it credited Chong’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account for $1,000 in December 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 267, 
and therefore denies them. 
20. 
Stephanie Moore 
268. BANA admits that transactions for an ATM withdrawal of $1,000 and 
a purchase of $482 at a Target retail store took place on Moore’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account on July 18, 2020, but denies that these transactions on her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in July 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 268, 
and therefore denies them. 
269. BANA admits that Moore contacted BANA to file an alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim on July 18, 2020.  BANA admits that it temporarily 
credited Moore’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account with $1,482.13 on July 30, 2020.  
BANA denies that, on or about August 7 or 8, 2020, BANA informed Moore in 
writing that it had made the $1,482 credit permanent.  BANA further states that the 
letter speaks for itself, and denies any allegations inconsistent with its contents.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 269, and therefore denies them. 
270. BANA denies that it froze Moore’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
on September 30, 2020, but avers that it froze Moore’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account on September 28, 2020.  BANA denies that it did not provide Moore notice 
of the alleged freeze.  BANA denies that there was an unsuccessful attempt to log 
into Moore’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account online on September 30, 2020, but 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3983     Page
69 of 214

 
70 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
avers that there was an unsuccessful attempt to log into Moore’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account online on September 29, 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 270, 
and therefore denies them. 
271. BANA denies that it credited Moore’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in August 2020.  BANA admits that it sent Moore a letter dated October 2, 
2020.  BANA further states that the letter speaks for itself, and denies any allegations 
inconsistent with its contents.  BANA admits that it debited Moore’s Account by 
$1,482.13 on October 4, 2020, and that her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
subsequently had a negative balance.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 271, and therefore 
denies them. 
272. BANA denies that Moore’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had 
transactions with a description that included the “State of CA EDD Unemployment.”  
BANA states that the allegations in Paragraph 272 regarding this transaction 
description state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a 
response is required, BANA denies them.  BANA admits that Moore contacted 
BANA to inquire about her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on October 12, 2020.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 272, and therefore denies them. 
273. BANA admits that Moore filed a putative class action lawsuit against 
BANA in November 2020.  BANA admits that it credited Moore’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account with $1,482 in December 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 273, 
and therefore denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3984     Page
70 of 214

 
71 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
21. 
Zinaida Petrova 
274. BANA admits that there was an online log in to Petrova’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account on May 30, 2021.  BANA admits that electronic funds transfers 
of $5,000 and $4,500 took place on Petrova’s Account on May 16, 2021 and May 23, 
2021 respectively, but denies that these transactions on Petrova’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in May 2021 were unauthorized.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 274, 
and therefore denies them. 
275. BANA admits that Petrova contacted BANA to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on May 31, 2021.  
BANA admits that, on the May 31, 2021 call, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative helped Petrova file an alleged unauthorized transaction claim and told 
Petrova that BANA would contact her regarding the findings of its investigation.  
BANA admits that Petrova contacted BANA to inquire about her alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim on June 10, 14, 15, and 17, 2021.  BANA denies that 
Petrova called BANA to inquire about her alleged unauthorized transaction claim on 
June 24, July 6, or July 7, 2021.  BANA admits that, in response to her claim status 
inquiry, BANA prepaid debit card call center representatives informed Petrova that 
her alleged unauthorized transaction claim was still pending, but denies that BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representatives informed Petrova that they could not 
locate her claim.  BANA admits that it has not credited Petrova’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account for the allegedly unauthorized transactions referenced in Paragraph 
274, but denies that it has not credited Petrova’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
for “any amount.”  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 275, and therefore denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3985     Page
71 of 214

 
72 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
276. BANA denies it sent Petrova a letter dated July 6, 2021.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 276, and therefore denies them. 
277. The allegations in Paragraph 277 state legal conclusions to which no 
response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
278. BANA admits that it has not credited Petrova’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account for the allegedly unauthorized transactions referenced in Paragraph 274, but 
denies that these transactions on Petrova’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in May 
2021 were unauthorized. 
[Removed] 
279. [Removed] 
280. [Removed] 
281. [Removed] 
282. [Removed] 
283. [Removed] 
284. [Removed] 
285. Paragraph 285 contains legal conclusions to which no response is 
required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 285 which concern unnamed class representatives and putative class 
members, and therefore denies them. 
H. 
Individual Plaintiffs’ Allegations 
286. BANA denies that Abarr began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in May 2020.  BANA denies that 
transactions totaling approximately $8,000 took place on Abarr’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in June 2020.  BANA denies that Abarr contacted BANA to report 
alleged fraud or unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3986     Page
72 of 214

 
73 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
in June 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit 
card call center representative told him in response.  BANA denies that Abarr’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever frozen, and therefore also denies his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever unfrozen.  The allegations regarding the 
legality of the alleged freeze on Abarr’s EDD Prepaid Debit Account state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them.  BANA denies that it has not credited Abarr’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account since May 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 286, and therefore 
denies them. 
287. [Removed] 
288. [Removed] 
289. BANA avers that it has been unable to independently identify an 
individual by the name of “Michael Adams” to whom EDD distributed 
unemployment benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in its 
records, and that BANA has requested but counsel for Adams has failed to provide 
information sufficient to allow BANA to identify Adams.  BANA thus lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 
289, and therefore denies them. 
290. BANA denies that Aguirre began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in December 2019.  
BANA denies that transactions totaling approximately $806 took place on Aguirre’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in May 2020.  BANA denies that Aguirre 
contacted BANA to report alleged fraud or unauthorized transactions on his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in May 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about 
what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told him in response.  
BANA denies that Aguirre’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in May 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3987     Page
73 of 214

 
74 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
2020, and that Aguirre’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account “remained frozen . . . for 
an entire year.”  BANA admits that it credited Aguirre’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account for $403 on May 27, 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 290, and therefore 
denies them. 
291. BANA admits that Allison began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in July 2020.  BANA 
denies that Allison’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen, and therefore 
also denies his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever unfrozen.  BANA denies 
that Allison contacted BANA to report a problem with his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in January 2021, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative told him in response.  BANA admits that 
it has not credited Allison’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for an alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim or related fees as such a claim was never made, but 
denies that Allison’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account has not received credits or 
deposits since January 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 291, and therefore denies them. 
292. BANA denies that K. Alvarez began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in July 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $10,000 took place on K. Alvarez’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account between July and November 2020, but denies that these 
transactions on K. Alvarez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account between July and 
November 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies that K. Alvarez contacted BANA 
or reported alleged fraud or unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in November 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative told him in response.  BANA denies that 
K. Alvarez filed four alleged unauthorized transaction claims with BANA in 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3988     Page
74 of 214

 
75 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
November 2020.  BANA denies that K. Alvarez called BANA “close to 500 times” 
to report alleged unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
since September 2020.  BANA denies that it has not credited K. Alvarez’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account for alleged unauthorized transactions since July 2020.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 292, and therefore denies them. 
293. [Removed] 
294. BANA admits that R. Alvarez received EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card.  BANA admits that a transaction 
for $8.75 took place on R. Alvarez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on June 13, 
2020.  BANA admits that R. Alvarez contacted BANA to inquire about the status of 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on June 15, 2020.  BANA admits that, on the 
June 15, 2020 call, R. Alvarez informed a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative that she believed a $160 ATM withdrawal which took place on her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was allegedly unauthorized.  BANA admits that a 
transaction for an ATM withdrawal of $160 took place on R. Alvarez’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account on June 13, 2020 in Corona, California, but denies that this 
transaction on R. Alvarez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in June 2020 was 
unauthorized.  BANA admits that R. Alvarez contacted BANA again on June 15, 
2020 and told a BANA prepaid debit card call representative that she had reviewed 
her statements and identified additional allegedly unauthorized ATM withdrawals.  
BANA admits that, on that date, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
told R. Alvarez that she should contact the prepaid debit card claims department, and 
that another BANA representative in the prepaid debit card claims department helped 
R. Alvarez file an alleged unauthorized transaction claim regarding several ATM 
withdrawals, including the $160 ATM withdrawal on June 13, 2020.  BANA denies 
that, on the June 15, 2020 call, a BANA prepaid debit card claims department 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3989     Page
75 of 214

 
76 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
representative provided R. Alvarez with alleged unauthorized transaction claim 
number #200615300845, but avers that, on the later June 15, 2020 call, a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative provided R. Alvarez with alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim number #200615300848.  BANA admits that R. 
Alvarez contacted BANA the week of July 6, 2020 to get an update on the status of 
her alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA denies that, when R. Alvarez 
contacted BANA on the week of July 6, 2020, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative informed R. Alvarez that BANA “had not done an investigation” 
because R. Alvarez had not returned to BANA a form that BANA had sent her.  
BANA denies that, when R. Alvarez contacted BANA on the week of July 6, 2020, 
a BANA representative informed R. Alvarez that they were unable to resend R. 
Alvarez a form needed to complete the investigation of her alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim.  The allegations in Paragraph 294 regarding BANA’s actions and 
omissions state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a 
response is required, BANA denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 294, and therefore 
denies them. 
295. [Removed] 
296. [Removed] 
297. BANA denies that Andrade began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions took place on Andrade’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
in August 2020, but denies that these transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in August 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies that Andrade contacted 
BANA to report alleged errors or unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in August 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what 
a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her in response.  BANA 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3990     Page
76 of 214

 
77 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
denies that it has not credited Andrade’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for 
alleged errors or unauthorized transactions.  BANA denies that it did not provide 
Andrade with additional information regarding alleged errors or unauthorized 
transactions or the results of any investigation of alleged errors or unauthorized 
transaction claims on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA admits that 
Andrade’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in September 2020, but 
avers that it was only frozen on September 28, 2020 and was unfrozen on October 4, 
2020.  BANA admits that Andrade had approximately $19,000 in funds on her EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020.  BANA denies that Andrade 
regained access to her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account at the end of September 
2020, but avers that Andrade’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen on 
October 4, 2020.  BANA denies that Andrade’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
had a negative balance of $19,000 in September 2020.  BANA admits that Andrade 
contacted BANA in September 2020, but denies that Andrade, starting in September 
2020, contacted BANA “on a daily basis” to report a negative EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account balance of $19,000.  BANA denies that BANA failed to temporarily 
or permanently credit Andrade’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for “the missing 
$19,000” or that it attempted to hold her responsible for “the alleged overdraft of 
$19,000.”  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 297, and therefore denies them. 
298. BANA denies that De Los Angeles began receiving EDD 
unemployment benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 
2020.  BANA denies that two transactions for $783 and $83 took place on De Los 
Angeles’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in April 2021.  BANA denies that De 
Los Angeles contacted BANA to report alleged unauthorized transactions on his 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on May 7, 2021, but avers that De Los Angeles 
contacted BANA on other days in May 2021 to report two alleged unauthorized 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3991     Page
77 of 214

 
78 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
transactions for $787 and $83, respectively, that took place on De Los Angeles’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in May 2021.  BANA denies that the transactions 
referenced in Paragraph 298 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that, on each of these 
calls, a BANA representative identified De Los Angeles as the caller, and accessed 
and reviewed certain information relating to De Los Angeles’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account.  BANA denies that it has not credited De Los Angeles’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account for the transactions alleged in Paragraph 298.  The allegations 
in Paragraph 298 regarding BANA’s investigation of De Los Angeles’s alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim and obligations under relevant law state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 298, and therefore denies them. 
299. [Removed] 
300. BANA admits that Arnoldstarr began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in July 2020.  BANA 
denies that five transactions totaling $5,000 took place on Arndolstarr’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in December 2020, but avers that five transactions totaling 
$4,700 took place on Arnoldstarr’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 
2020.  BANA denies that those five transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in December 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Arnoldstarr 
contacted BANA to report allegedly unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in December 2020, but denies that he was “often” put on hold 
for one to three hours waiting for a representative, and denies that he was “often” 
disconnected once a supervisor answered the line.  BANA admits that during a 
December 2020 phone call with Arnoldstarr a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative identified Arnoldstarr, his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and the 
alleged unauthorized transactions totaling $4,700, and that Arnoldstarr requested that 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3992     Page
78 of 214

 
79 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 research and investigate the alleged unauthorized transactions and report its 
findings, but denies that those transactions were unauthorized.  BANA denies that 
Arnoldstarr never received a temporary or permanent credit for his alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA denies that instead of crediting Arnoldstarr’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account or providing him the results of the investigation, 
that BANA’s only response to Arnoldstarr was telling him to call EDD for any type 
of relief.  BANA admits that Arnoldstarr’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
frozen in December 2020.  BANA admits that Arnoldstarr called BANA on the same 
day that his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen to request that BANA 
provide the information it was relying upon to freeze his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account.  BANA denies that it did not provide Arnoldstarr with information 
concerning the freeze of his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  The allegations in 
Paragraph 300 regarding BANA’s investigation of Arnoldstarr’s unauthorized 
transaction claim and obligations under relevant law state legal conclusions to which 
no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 300, and therefore denies them. 
301. [Removed] 
302. [Removed] 
303. BANA denies that BANA did not send Back an EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card until March 2021.  BANA admits that Back’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
was blocked on March 26, 2021, and avers that it was also unblocked on March 26, 
2021, and then blocked again on March 27, 2021 until April 1, 2021, when it was 
unblocked again.  BANA admits that Back contacted BANA between March 26 and 
April 1, 2021 regarding the status of her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA 
denies that BANA would not answer the telephone when Back attempted to contact 
BANA to inquire about the status of her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and avers 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3993     Page
79 of 214

 
80 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
that Back spoke with a BANA representative on a daily basis between March 26 and 
April 1, 2021.  BANA admits that, during these conversations with Back between 
March 26 and April 1, 2021, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
suggested that Back contact EDD regarding alleged attempts to order new EDD 
Prepaid Debit Cards using her personal information, but denies that the BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative informed Back that she needed to contact 
EDD to regain access to her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies Back 
contacted BANA in May 2021 and denies that Back ever filed an unauthorized 
transaction or error claim with BANA concerning any alleged fraudulent activity on 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that Back’s account was 
blocked or that there was a freeze or block on Back’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account until May 2021, and therefore denies that an EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account block or freeze prevented Back from accessing her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account until May 2021.  BANA denies that transactions totaling $17,000 took place 
on Back’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in the 60 days prior to May 2021.  
BANA denies that Back contacted BANA to report alleged unauthorized transactions 
on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in May 2021, and therefore admits that it 
did not temporarily or permanently credit Back’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
for allegedly unauthorized transactions occurring in the 60 days prior to May 2021.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 303, and therefore denies them. 
304. BANA denies that Barnette began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in June 2020.  BANA 
denies that ATM withdrawals totaling $8,000 took place on Barnette’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in June 2020.  BANA denies that Barnette contacted BANA to 
report alleged fraud or unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in September 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3994     Page
80 of 214

 
81 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
prepaid debit card call center representative told him in response.  BANA denies that 
Barnette’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in September 2020.  BANA 
denies that it unfroze Barnette’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in May 2021.  
BANA denies that it credited Barnette’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $6,200 
of alleged unauthorized transactions in February 2021, but avers that it has credited 
Barnette’s account for more than $8,000 related to alleged unauthorized transaction 
claims on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 304, 
and therefore denies them. 
305. [Removed] 
306. [Removed] 
307. [Removed] 
308. [Removed] 
309. [Removed] 
310. [Removed] 
311. BANA denies that Brady began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in June 2020.  BANA admits that 
ATM withdrawals totaling $2,000 took place on Brady’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in June 2020, but denies that these transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in June 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies that Brady contacted 
BANA to report alleged fraud or unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in June 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative told him in response.  BANA denies that 
Brady’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in October 2020, but avers 
that Brady’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen on September 28, 2020.  
BANA admits that Brady’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen on 
October 4, 2020.  BANA denies that Brady’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3995     Page
81 of 214

 
82 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
frozen again in December 2020, and therefore denies that Brady’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account was unfrozen again in January 2021 because it was not frozen 
at that time.  BANA admits that it temporarily credited Brady’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account for $2,000 in July 2020.  BANA admits that it debited Brady’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account by $2,000 on October 4, 2020, and that, subsequently, 
Brady’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a negative balance.  BANA denies 
that it has not credited Brady for alleged unauthorized transactions on his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 311, and therefore denies them. 
312. BANA admits that Brooks began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in June 2020 and that there 
were multiple deposits for unemployment benefits on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in June and July of 2020, but denies that unemployment benefits were 
deposited to his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account approximately in the amount of 
$767 weekly.  BANA denies that Brooks contacted BANA to report not receiving his 
weekly electronic transfer of his EDD unemployment benefits or errors concerning 
his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in July 2020, and therefore denies the 
allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told him 
in response.  The allegations in Paragraph 312 regarding BANA’s investigation of 
Brooks’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account status and obligations under relevant law 
state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
required, BANA denies them.  BANA denies that BANA began sending Brooks 
renewed EDD unemployment benefits through the use of electronic transactions 
beginning in August of 2020 through January 2021, but avers that Brooks received 
EDD unemployment benefits through his EDD Prepaid Debit Card between June 
2020 and September 2021.  BANA denies that Brooks contacted BANA to report 
alleged errors on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in June or July 2020, denies 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3996     Page
82 of 214

 
83 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told 
him in response, and therefore admits that it did not provide a temporary or 
permanent credit to Brooks for the alleged reported error to his EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in the June 2020 through July 2020 time period.  BANA admits that 
Brooks contacted BANA to inquire about the status of his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in January 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 312, and therefore denies them. 
313. BANA admits that it issued Brotman an EDD Prepaid Debit Card with 
a magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms of BANA’s contract with EDD to 
access his EDD unemployment benefits.  BANA admits that an ATM withdrawal 
totaling $990.50 took place on Brotman’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on 
October 22, 2020, but denies that the October 22, 2020 transaction on his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was unauthorized.  BANA denies that a transaction at 
an ARCO gas station in San Diego, California took place on Brotman’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account.  BANA admits that Brotman contacted BANA to report alleged 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on October 27, 
2020, and admits that a BANA representative verified Brotman’s identity.  BANA 
admits that that balance on Brotman’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was $170.81 
after the $990.50 ATM withdrawal took place on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account on October 22, 2020.  BANA denies that BANA never credited Brotman’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for the $990.50 ATM transaction, but admits that 
Brotman’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was not credited for a transaction at an 
ARCO gas station in San Diego, California because BANA’s records reflect that no 
such transaction occurred on Brotman’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA 
denies that it failed to provide any additional notification, in writing or otherwise, as 
to how BANA reached its conclusion after conducting a reasonable investigation or 
what documents BANA relied on.  BANA admits that BANA sent Brotman a letter 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3997     Page
83 of 214

 
84 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
on October 28, 2020.  BANA states the letter speaks for itself and denies any 
allegations inconsistent with its contents.  BANA denies that Brotman contacted 
BANA daily beginning in October 2020, but BANA admits that Brotman contacted 
BANA multiple times a month between October 2020 and March 2021.  BANA lacks 
information and knowledge sufficient to admit or deny allegations related to 
unspecified phone calls, and therefore denies them. BANA admits that during a 
November 2020 call, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told 
Brotman that he would need to call BANA back during normal operating hours for 
the prepaid debit card claims department in order to speak to a BANA representative 
in that department.  BANA admits that Brotman’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
was frozen on December 17, 2020, but denies that he contacted BANA on December 
17, 2020, and denies that BANA never provided Brotman with a notice regarding the 
freeze or other additional information as to why a freeze or block was placed on his 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA admits that Brotman contacted BANA in 
January 2021, but denies that an prepaid debit card call center representative told him 
the status of his alleged unauthorized transaction claim had “shifted from ‘closed’ to 
‘pending maintenance.’”  BANA denies that BANA sent Brotman a letter on 
February 1, 2021.  BANA admits that BANA mailed Brotman a letter dated February 
3, 2021.  BANA states that the letter speaks for itself and denies any allegations 
inconsistent with its contents.  BANA admits it did not provide Brotman with a 
temporary credit for the transactions referenced in Paragraph 313, but denies that it 
did not credit Brotman’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for the $990.50 
transaction or the international transaction fee, and denies that it did not credit 
Brotman for interest on his alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA denies 
that BANA’s customer service department never offered Brotman “any meaningful 
response or assistance” and denies that it “stymied his efforts at every turn.”  The 
allegations in Paragraph 313 regarding BANA’s investigation of Brotman’s alleged 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3998     Page
84 of 214

 
85 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
unauthorized transaction claim, obligations under relevant law, and whether Brotman 
“upheld his end of the Cardholder Agreement and the requirements of EFTA” state 
legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
required, BANA denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 313, and therefore denies them. 
314. [Removed] 
315. [Removed] 
316. BANA denies that Burrow began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in July 2020.  BANA 
denies that Burrow’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen between 
December 2020 and March 2021.  The allegations regarding the legality of the 
alleged freeze on Burrow’s EDD Prepaid Debit Account state legal conclusions to 
which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them.  BANA admits that transactions totaling approximately $200 took place on 
Burrow’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 2021, but denies that these 
transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 2021 were 
unauthorized.  BANA denies that Burrow contacted BANA or reported fraud or 
unauthorized transactions to BANA via phone in March 2021, and therefore denies 
the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told 
him in response.  BANA denies that Burrow’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
frozen between March 2021 and April 2021.  BANA denies that BANA credited 
Burrow’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for approximately $200 in March 2021 
and reversed it one week later, and denies that the $200 was “fraudulently stolen 
money.”  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 316, and therefore denies them. 
317. BANA admits that Bynum began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in July 2020.  BANA 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.3999     Page
85 of 214

 
86 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
admits that transactions totaling at least $3,904 took place on Bynum’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account within 60 days prior to August 2020, but denies that those 
transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account were unauthorized.  BANA 
admits that Bynum contacted BANA to report multiple allegedly unauthorized 
transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in August 2020.  BANA admits 
that during this call, Bynum identified himself to a BANA prepaid debit card call 
center representative and the representative acknowledged his identity, identified his 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and identified the specific transactions that 
Bynum alleged were unauthorized, but denies that the BANA representative made 
any determination or agreement as to whether those transactions were unauthorized.  
BANA denies that it credited Bynum $3,900.00 approximately ten days from his 
original report of the alleged unauthorized EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
transactions, but avers that it credited Bynum $3,705.70 three days after he originally 
reported the allegedly unauthorized transactions.  BANA denies that a transaction of 
$7,000 ever occurred on Bynum’s Account, and specifically denies that a transaction 
of $7,000 occurred within 60 days of October 4, 2020.  BANA denies that Bynum 
had a negative Account balance of $2,000 on October 4, 2020.  BANA admits that 
Bynum contacted BANA regarding his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on October 
4, 2020, but denies that Bynum contacted BANA regarding alleged errors or an 
allegedly unauthorized transaction or for additional information concerning his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account on October 4, 2020, and therefore denies that BANA 
refused to provide him with any additional information regarding the alleged errors 
or allegedly unauthorized transaction and likewise denies BANA “would not” 
temporarily or permanently credit him for the allegedly unauthorized transaction.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 317, and therefore denies them. 
318. [Removed] 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4000     Page
86 of 214

 
87 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
319. [Removed] 
320. BANA denies that Camberos began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in May 2020.  BANA 
admits that Camberos contacted BANA to report alleged fraud or allegedly 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in February 2021.  
BANA denies that, on the February 15, 2021 call, a BANA representative informed 
Camberos to call BANA back in a few weeks to resolve her issue.  BANA admits 
that Camberos’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in February 2021.  
BANA denies that Camberos’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a balance of 
$32 when her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen.  BANA denies that 
Camberos’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was still frozen in May 2021, and 
therefore denies that it unfroze Camberos’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in May 
2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 320, and therefore denies them. 
321. BANA admits that Carpenter began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in June 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $200 took place on Carpenter’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account within 60 days prior to October 2020, but denies that those 
transactions were unauthorized.  BANA denies that Carpenter contacted BANA to 
report allegedly unauthorized transactions totaling $200 on her EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in October 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a 
BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her in response.  BANA 
denies that Carpenter ever filed an alleged unauthorized transaction or error claim 
with BANA concerning any alleged fraudulent activity on her EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account, and therefore denies there was an unauthorized transaction claim to 
investigate.  The allegations in Paragraph 321 regarding the timing of BANA’s 
payment of Carpenter’s alleged unauthorized transaction claims state legal 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4001     Page
87 of 214

 
88 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them.  BANA denies that there was a freeze or block on Carpenter’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in July 2020, and therefore denies that a freeze or 
block prevented Carpenter from accessing her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
July 2020.  BANA denies that Carpenter contacted BANA to inquire about the status 
of her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in July 2020, and therefore denies the 
allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her 
in response.  BANA denies that, since July 2020, BANA has “continued to release 
and then restrict” Carpenter’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account “at least six (6) 
times,” and avers that BANA blocked and unblocked Carpenter’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account three different times in March 2021 based on suspected fraud related 
to her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA admits that Carpenter contacted 
BANA to inquire about the status of her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on March 
8, 2021 and March 27, 2021.  BANA denies that Carpenter’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was ever frozen, and therefore admits that her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was never unfrozen.  BANA denies that it credited $200 to Carpenter’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account concerning an alleged unauthorized transaction claim 
because Carpenter did not make an alleged unauthorized transaction claim related to 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  The allegations in Paragraph 321 regarding 
BANA’s investigation of Carpenter’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim (which 
Carpenter did not submit) and obligations under relevant law state legal conclusions 
to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 321, and therefore denies them. 
322. BANA denies that Castillo began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in early 2020.  BANA 
denies that transactions totaling approximately $15,000 took place on Castillo’s EDD 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4002     Page
88 of 214

 
89 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in the 60 days prior to August 2020, and denies that any 
such transactions occurring prior to August 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies 
that Castillo contacted BANA to report allegedly unauthorized transactions totaling 
approximately $15,000 on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in August 2020, but 
avers that Castillo contacted BANA in September 2020 regarding allegedly 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies 
that BANA never permanently credited Castillo for allegedly unauthorized EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account transactions.  BANA denies that it failed to provide any 
additional notification, in writing or otherwise, as to how it reached its conclusion in 
conducting a reasonable investigation or what documents it relied upon in 
investigating Castillo’s alleged unauthorized EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
transactions.  BANA admits that Castillo’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
frozen in January 2021.  BANA admits that Castillo contacted BANA to inquire 
about the status of her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021.  BANA 
denies that it failed to provide any information over the telephone and that it never 
provided any additional information as to why a freeze was placed on Castillo’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that it credited Castillo’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account for approximately $4,000 in March 2021.  BANA denies that it 
credited Castillo’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for approximately $900 in May 
2021, and denies that $4,900 or $900 credits occurred seven months after Castillo 
reported alleged unauthorized transactions or were provided without explanation.  
The allegations in Paragraph 322 regarding BANA’s investigation of Castillo’s 
alleged unauthorized transaction claims and obligations under relevant law state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them.  BANA denies that Castillo still has not received a credit of over 
$10,000 related to alleged unauthorized transactions.  The allegations in Paragraph 
322 regarding the timing of BANA’s payment of Castillo’s alleged unauthorized 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4003     Page
89 of 214

 
90 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
transaction claims state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the 
extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 322, 
and therefore denies them. 
323. BANA admits that Caton began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in April 2020.  BANA denies that 
there were transactions totaling $4,500 on Caton’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
in March 2021, but admits there were transactions totaling $4,500 on Caton’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in February and March 2021.  BANA denies that these 
transactions on Caton’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account between February and 
March 2021 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Caton contacted BANA to report 
fraud or allegedly unauthorized transactions totaling $4,500 on his EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in March 2021.  BANA admits that a BANA representative 
informed Caton that BANA would investigate Caton’s alleged unauthorized 
transactions claim and that BANA would issue him a replacement card.  BANA 
denies that a BANA representative informed Caton that Caton would have to file a 
new alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA admits that Caton’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in March 2021.  BANA denies that Caton’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was still frozen in May 2021, and therefore denies 
that it unfroze Caton’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in May 2021.  BANA 
admits that it has not credited Caton for these allegedly unauthorized transactions.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 323, and therefore denies them. 
324. BANA denies that Chapple began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in April 2020.  BANA 
denies that there were transactions totaling $400 on Chapple’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in May 2020.  BANA denies that Chapple contacted BANA to report 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4004     Page
90 of 214

 
91 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
fraud or allegedly unauthorized transactions totaling $400 on her EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in May 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative told her in response.  BANA denies that 
there were transactions totaling $500 on Chapple’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
in April 2021.  BANA denies that Chapple contacted BANA to report alleged fraud 
or allegedly unauthorized transactions totaling $500 on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in April 2021, but avers that Chapple contacted BANA to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions totaling $193.21 in April 2021.  BANA denies that these 
transactions on Chapple’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in April 2021 were 
unauthorized.  BANA admits that, on the April 20, 2021 call, a BANA prepaid debit 
card call center representative helped Chapple file a claim for these allegedly 
unauthorized transactions.  BANA denies that Chapple’s EDD Prepaid Debt Card 
Account was frozen in June 2020.  BANA denies that Chapple’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was unfrozen in August 2020 because it was not frozen at that time.  
BANA denies that Chapple’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in 
October 2020.  BANA denies that Chapple’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
frozen in December 2020 because it was not frozen at that time.  BANA denies that 
it credited Chapple’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account $200 in June 2020 or that it 
credited Chapple’s Account $115 in April 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 324, 
and therefore denies them. 
325. BANA denies that BANA froze or blocked Chase’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account on December 19, 2020, but avers that BANA blocked Chase’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account on December 20, 2020 and that the account was 
unblocked on January 4, 2021.  BANA admits that Chase contacted BANA to inquire 
about the status of his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on December 24, 2020.  
BANA admits that, on the December 24, 2020 call, a BANA prepaid debit card call 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4005     Page
91 of 214

 
92 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
center representative verified Chase’s identity, and reviewed his EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account.  BANA denies that Chase contacted BANA “hundreds of times” from 
December 2020 through January 2021, and therefore denies the allegations about 
what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told him in response.  
BANA denies that BANA never provided any information as to why a block was 
placed on Chase’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that BANA has 
yet to grant Chase access to his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and avers that 
BANA unblocked Chase’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on January 4, 2021.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 325, and therefore denies them. 
326. [Removed] 
327. [Removed] 
328. BANA denies that Cochran began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in February 2020.  BANA 
denies that multiple transactions totaling $30,000 took place on Cochran’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in August and September 2020, but avers that there were 
more than $30,000 in transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in August 
and September 2020. BANA denies that those transactions were unauthorized.  
BANA admits that Cochran contacted BANA to report alleged fraud or allegedly 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in August 2020.  
BANA admits that, on an August 30, 2020 call, BANA informed Cochran that BANA 
would issue Cochran a replacement EDD Prepaid Debit Card.  BANA denies that 
BANA informed Cochran, on the August 30, 2020 call, that BANA would issue 
Cochran a replacement EDD Prepaid Debit Card with $15,000 of credits on the card, 
and denies that Cochran was informed “two more times” that she would receive a 
replacement EDD Prepaid Debit Card with $15,000 of credits on the card.  BANA 
denies that BANA froze Cochran’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in October 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4006     Page
92 of 214

 
93 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
2020.  BANA admits that Cochran’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
overdrawn by approximately $44,000 on October 4, 2020.  BANA admits that 
Cochran contacted BANA to inquire about the status of her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account on October 6, 2020.  BANA denies that Cochran’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account had $300 deposited into it on October 5, 2020.  BANA denies that Cochran’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had $300 deposited into it each week in the month 
of October 2020.  BANA denies that it has not credited Cochran since August 2020, 
and denies that any money was stolen from her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 328, and therefore denies them. 
329. BANA denies that Collins began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in February 2020.  BANA 
denies that Collins contacted BANA to report alleged fraud or allegedly unauthorized 
transactions on his Account in June 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about 
what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told him in response.  
BANA denies that Collins’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever frozen, and 
therefore also denies his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was never unfrozen.  
BANA denies that there were transactions totaling approximately $400 on Collins’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account between October and December 2020.  BANA 
admits that Collins contacted BANA to report alleged fraud or allegedly unauthorized 
transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020.  BANA 
denies that it credited Collins’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account $250.00 in 
December 2020, but avers that it credited Collins’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
$287.68 in December 2020.  BANA denies that it denied an alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim for $160 in December 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 329, 
and therefore denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4007     Page
93 of 214

 
94 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
330. [Removed] 
331. BANA denies that Contreras began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA 
admits that multiple transactions totaling $1,200 took place on Contreras’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in October 2020, but denies that those transactions were 
unauthorized.  BANA admits that Contreras contacted BANA to report alleged fraud 
or allegedly unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on 
November 16, 2020.  BANA admits that, on the November 16, 2020 call, BANA 
informed Contreras that BANA would issue Contreras a replacement EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card.  BANA denies that, in November 2020, BANA informed Contreras that 
BANA would contact him within a few weeks regarding its investigation of his 
alleged unauthorized transactions.  BANA admits that Contreras’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account was frozen in December 2020.  BANA denies that it has yet to 
unfreeze Contreras’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but avers that Contreras’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen on March 18, 2021 and then blocked 
until March 31, 2021.  BANA denies that, since November 2020, BANA has not 
credited Contreras’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 331, 
and therefore denies them. 
332. BANA denies that Corella began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in June 2020.  BANA 
admits that Corella’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had transactions totaling at 
least $12,000 between June to August 2020, but denies that these transactions were 
unauthorized or that her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a balance of negative 
$6,000 between June and August 2020.  BANA denies that Corella contacted BANA 
to report alleged fraud or allegedly unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in August 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4008     Page
94 of 214

 
95 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her in response.  BANA 
denies that Corella’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in August 2020.  
BANA denies that Corella’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in 
February 2021.  BANA denies that Corella’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
frozen again in February 2021.  BANA denies that it credited Corella’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account with $6,000 in October 2020.  BANA denies that it reversed this 
previous credit to Corella’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account and that it reversed an 
additional $3,000 from her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020.  
BANA denies that Corella’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a balance of 
negative $9,000 in December 2020.  BANA denies that it has not credited any money 
to Corella’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account since December 2020.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 332, and therefore denies them. 
333. [Removed] 
334. [Removed] 
335. [Removed] 
336. [Removed] 
337. [Removed] 
338. [Removed] 
339. BANA admits that Delariva began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in August 2020.  BANA 
admits that Delariva’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had transactions totaling at 
least $6,000 in August 2020 including transactions at Nike and Bed, Bath, and 
Beyond, but denies that these transactions on Delariva’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in August 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Delariva contacted 
BANA regarding alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
September 2020.  BANA denies that, on the September 2020 call in which Delariva 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4009     Page
95 of 214

 
96 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
reported alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, a BANA prepaid 
debit card call center representative told Delariva to “resolve his problem with EDD.”  
BANA denies that Delariva’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in 
November 2020, and denies that it has yet to unfreeze Delariva’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account.  BANA denies that it reversed a previous credit to Delariva’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020.  BANA denies that it has not 
credited Delariva’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account since November 2020.  BANA 
lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 339, and therefore denies them. 
340. [Removed] 
341. BANA admits that Delgado began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in June 2020.  BANA 
denies that Delgado’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had ATM withdrawals 
totaling $6,543 in June 2020.  BANA admits that Delgado contacted BANA 
regarding alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in June 2020, but 
denies that she had fraud or unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account.  BANA denies that Delgado’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had 
transactions totaling $14,000 in June 2021.  BANA denies that Delgado contacted 
BANA in June 2021, and denies that she experienced fraud or unauthorized 
transactions on her account in June 2021.  BANA denies that BANA froze Delgado’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in August 2020, but avers that Delgado’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen on September 28, 2020.  BANA denies 
that Delgado’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a balance of approximately 
$10,584 in August 2020.  BANA denies that BANA has yet to unfreeze Delgado’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and avers that Delgado’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was unfrozen on October 4, 2020.  BANA denies that it temporarily credited 
Delgado’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for four payments of $1,512, for a total 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4010     Page
96 of 214

 
97 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 $6,048, in August 2020, but avers that BANA credited Delgado’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account with $316.77 in August 2020.  BANA denies that it debited 
temporary credits on Delgado’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account regarding alleged 
unauthorized transactions on February 28, 2021  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 341, 
and therefore denies them. 
342. BANA denies that Dirickson began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in October 2020.  BANA 
denies that Dirickson’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had withdrawals totaling 
approximately $12,000 between November 2020 and January 2021 and denies that 
he experienced fraud or unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account.  BANA denies that Dirickson contacted BANA regarding alleged fraud or 
allegedly unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
January 2021, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit 
card call center representative told him in response.  BANA denies that Dirickson’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in November 2020, but avers that 
Dirickson’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen on December 17, 2020.  
BANA denies that the balance of Dirickson’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
$4,200 when the account was frozen.  BANA denies that it unfroze Dirickson’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 2021, but avers that Dirickson’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account was unfrozen on February 10, 2021.  BANA denies that it 
credited Dirickson’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account with $4,600 in February 
2021, but avers that it credited his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account with $4,734.03 
in January 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny 
the remaining allegations in Paragraph 342, and therefore denies them. 
343. [Removed] 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4011     Page
97 of 214

 
98 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
344. BANA denies that Douglas began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in February 2021.  BANA 
admits that Douglas contacted BANA regarding allegedly missing EDD 
unemployment benefits deposits on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in April 
2021, and that Douglas requested an investigation into these allegedly missing EDD 
unemployment benefits deposits on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA 
admits that BANA did not credit Douglas’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for 
these allegedly missing EDD unemployment benefits deposits.  BANA denies that it 
did not provide Douglas with a notification and written explanation of its decision 
concerning the allegedly missing EDD unemployment benefits deposits referenced 
in Paragraph 344.  The allegations in Paragraph 344 regarding BANA’s investigation 
of Douglas’s allegedly missing EDD unemployment benefits deposits on his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  BANA denies that Douglas 
contacted BANA regarding allegedly missing EDD unemployment benefits deposits 
on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account at the end of April 2021, and therefore 
denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told him in response.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 344, and therefore 
denies them. 
345. BANA denies that Douglass began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in January 2020.  BANA 
denies that Douglass’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had any transactions in 
April 2020 or during the previous 60 days.  BANA denies that Douglass contacted 
BANA in April 2020 for any reason, including regarding alleged unauthorized 
transactions or regarding any account freeze or block, and therefore denies the 
allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told him 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4012     Page
98 of 214

 
99 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
in response.  BANA denies that Douglass ever contacted BANA to file an 
unauthorized transaction or error claim with BANA concerning any alleged 
fraudulent activity on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and therefore admits 
that it never credited Douglass’s account based on an alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim.  BANA denies that it permanently credited Douglass’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account concerning an error or unauthorized transaction claim 
in June 2020 because Douglass did not contact BANA to report any alleged errors or 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies 
that Douglass’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in April 2020, but avers 
that Douglass’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen on December 21, 2020, 
unfrozen on February 18, 2021, and then re-frozen on May 26, 2022 at the instruction 
of the EDD.  BANA denies that it did not provide Douglass additional information 
as to why his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen.  BANA denies that 
Douglass contacted BANA “multiple times per week” to request additional 
information as to why his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen.  BANA 
denies that there was a freeze or block on Douglass’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in June 2020, and therefore denies that BANA released any freezes or blocks 
on Douglass’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in June 2020.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 345, and therefore denies them. 
346. [Removed] 
347. [Removed] 
348. [Removed] 
349. [Removed] 
350. BANA denies that Escalante began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA 
admits that Escalante’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had transactions totaling 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4013     Page
99 of 214

 
100 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
at least $2,000 in March 2021, but denies that these transactions on Escalante’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 2021 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that 
Escalante contacted BANA regarding alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in March 2021.  BANA denies that, in response to her contacting BANA 
regarding alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, a BANA prepaid 
debit card call center representative informed Escalante that her “issue was with 
EDD” and that Escalante needed to contact EDD to “resolve” her issue.  BANA 
denies that Escalante’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in April 2021.  
BANA denies that Escalante’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in 
June 2021.  BANA denies that it credited Escalante’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account $2,000 in June 2021, but avers that her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
was credited for at least $2,000 related to the transactions referenced in Paragraph 
350 on April 13, 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit 
or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 350, and therefore denies them. 
351. [Removed] 
352. BANA denies that Estrada began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card on June 4, 2020.  BANA 
denies that Estrada’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had transactions totaling 
approximately $5,780.00 in the 60 days prior to November 2020.  BANA admits that 
Estrada contacted BANA regarding alleged unauthorized transactions on his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020, but denies that he was “forced to 
call ‘countless’ times and was kept on hold for hours.”  BANA denies that BANA 
failed to provide a credit for the alleged unauthorized transactions on Estrada’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account referenced in Paragraph 352.  BANA denies that a 
BANA prepaid debit card call center representative informed Estrada that, in 
connection with his alleged unauthorized transactions claim, Estrada “was required 
to go to the police station and obtain a police report.”  BANA denies that it credited 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4014     Page
100 of 214

 
101 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
Estrada’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $2,680 in February 2021, but avers 
that BANA credited Estrada’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account with $2,609.44 in 
April 2021.  The allegations in Paragraph 352 regarding the timing of BANA’s 
payment of Estrada’s alleged unauthorized transaction claims state legal conclusions 
to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 352, and therefore denies them. 
353. [Removed] 
354. BANA denies that Ferraro began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in February 2020.  BANA 
admits that Ferraro’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had transactions in May 
2021, but denies that these transactions on Ferraro’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in May 2021 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Ferraro contacted 
BANA regarding alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in May 
2021.  BANA denies that BANA prepaid debit card call center representatives 
refused to help Ferraro with his alleged claim or often dropped his calls.  BANA 
denies that Ferraro’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever frozen, and 
therefore also denies his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever unfrozen.  
BANA denies that it has not credited Ferraro’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
since May 2021, and denies that BANA stated it would credit Ferraro’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in June 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 354, and therefore 
denies them. 
355. BANA denies that Flores began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through BANA in October 2020.  BANA denies that any transactions took place on 
Flores’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that Flores ever contacted 
BANA, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4015     Page
101 of 214

 
102 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
call center representative told him in response.  BANA denies that Flores filed an 
alleged unauthorized transaction or error claim with BANA concerning any alleged 
fraudulent activity on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and therefore admits 
that it never credited Flores’s account based on an alleged unauthorized transaction 
claim. BANA denies that Flores’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever frozen 
or blocked.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 355, and therefore denies them. 
356. [Removed] 
357. [Removed] 
358. BANA admits that Franks began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in August 2020.  BANA 
admits that Franks’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had transactions in October 
2020, but denies that these transactions on Franks’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in October 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies that Franks contacted 
BANA regarding alleged fraud or unauthorized transactions in October 2020, and 
therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told him in response.  BANA denies that Franks filed an alleged 
unauthorized transaction or error claim with BANA concerning any alleged 
fraudulent activity on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and therefore admits 
that it never credited Franks’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account based on an alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA denies that BANA froze Franks’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in October 2020, and therefore also denies that it has 
not unfrozen Franks’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account since October 2020.  BANA 
lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 358, and therefore denies them. 
359. [Removed] 
360. [Removed] 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4016     Page
102 of 214

 
103 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
361. [Removed] 
362. BANA denies that Gage began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA denies that 
there was fraud or unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account.  BANA denies that there were transactions totaling $3,000.00 on Gage’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020.  BANA denies that Gage 
contacted BANA regarding alleged fraud or unauthorized transactions in September 
2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call 
center representative told him in response.  BANA denies that Gage’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account was frozen in September 2020, and therefore denies that Gage’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account has not been since unfrozen.  BANA denies that it 
has not credited any money to Gage’s Account since September 2020.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 362, and therefore denies them. 
363. [Removed] 
364. [Removed] 
365. [Removed] 
366. BANA denies that Giddens could not access her EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account until August 2020.  BANA admits that Giddens’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account had transactions totaling at least $18,000 in August 2020, but denies 
that these transactions on Giddens’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in August 
2020 were fraudulent or unauthorized.  BANA admits that Giddens contacted BANA 
regarding alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in August 2020.  
BANA admits that a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative assisted 
Giddens in filing an alleged unauthorized transaction claim in August 2020 and that 
the BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her that a temporary 
credit would be applied to her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account if BANA did not 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4017     Page
103 of 214

 
104 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
resolve her alleged unauthorized transaction claim in ten business days.  BANA 
denies that Giddens’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in August 2020.  
BANA denies that Giddens’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in 
September 2020.  BANA denies that Giddens’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
was frozen in October 2020.  BANA denies that Giddens’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was unfrozen in April 2021.  BANA admits that it temporarily credited 
Giddens’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in August 2020, but denies that the 
temporary credit was for $18,000.  BANA admits that it debited Giddens’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account for approximately $18,000 in October 4, 2020, and that, 
subsequently Giddens’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a negative balance.  
BANA denies that it credited her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account $23,000 in April 
2021, but avers that BANA credited her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account $3,433.46 
on October 19, 2020 and $18,322.91 on December 22, 2020.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 366, and therefore denies them. 
367. BANA denies that Glassflowers began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in April 2020.  BANA 
admits that Glassflowers’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had transactions 
totaling at least $543 in November 2020, but denies that these transactions on 
Glassflowers’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020 were 
unauthorized.  BANA admits that Glassflowers contacted BANA regarding alleged 
fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020.  BANA admits 
that a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative assisted Glassflowers in 
filing an alleged unauthorized transaction claim in November 2020.  BANA denies 
that Glassflowers’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in November 2020.  
BANA denies that Glassflowers’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen 
in May 2021.  BANA denies that it credited Glassflowers’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4018     Page
104 of 214

 
105 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 with $543 in May 2021, but avers that it credited Glassflowers’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account with $540 in May 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 367, 
and therefore denies them. 
368. BANA denies that A. Gonzalez began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in June 2020.  BANA 
admits that A. Gonzalez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had transactions totaling 
at least $739 in September 2020, but denies that these transactions on A. Gonzalez’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020 were fraud or unauthorized.  
BANA admits that A. Gonzalez contacted BANA regarding alleged fraud or 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 
2020.  BANA admits that, in September 2020, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told A. Gonzalez that BANA would investigate her alleged 
unauthorized transactions claim, but denies that a BANA prepaid debit card call 
center representative told A. Gonzalez that she needed to “resolve her issue with 
EDD.”  BANA admits that A. Gonzalez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
frozen in September 2020.  BANA denies that A. Gonzalez’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was unfrozen in May 2021, but avers that A. Gonzalez’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account was unfrozen in March 2021 and then subject to a state 
disqualified freeze on May 26, 2022 and has not been unfrozen since then.  BANA 
admits that A. Gonzalez was sent a replacement Card in May 2021.  BANA denies 
that it has not credited A. Gonzalez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account since 
September 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 368, and therefore denies them. 
369. [Removed] 
370. BANA denies that L. Gonzalez began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in September 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4019     Page
105 of 214

 
106 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
2020.  BANA admits that L. Gonzalez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had 
transactions totaling at least $900 in October 2020, but denies that these transactions 
on L. Gonzalez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in October 2020 were 
unauthorized.  BANA admits that L. Gonzalez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
had a balance of $0 in October 2020.  BANA denies that L. Gonzalez contacted 
BANA regarding alleged fraud or unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in October 2020, but avers that L. Gonzalez contacted BANA 
regarding alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020.  
BANA admits that, in November 2020, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told L. Gonzalez that BANA would investigate her alleged 
unauthorized transactions claim, but denies that a BANA prepaid debit card call 
center representative told L. Gonzalez that she needed to “talk to EDD regarding her 
issue.”  BANA denies that L. Gonzalez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
frozen in October 2020.  BANA denies that L. Gonzalez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was unfrozen in late October or early November 2020.  BANA denies that 
it has not credited L. Gonzalez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 370, and therefore denies them. 
371. BANA admits that Graham began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in July 2020.  BANA 
admits that Graham’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had transactions in 
November 2020, but denies that these transactions on Graham’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in November 2020 were fraud or unauthorized.  BANA admits that 
Graham contacted BANA regarding alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in November 2020.  BANA denies that a BANA prepaid debit card call 
center representative informed Graham that this was an “EDD issue and to call them 
to resolve.”  BANA denies that Graham’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4020     Page
106 of 214

 
107 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
frozen in November 2020, but avers that Graham’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
was frozen in December 2020.  BANA denies that, since November 2020, Graham’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account has not been unfrozen, but avers that Graham’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in March 18, 2021 and then blocked 
the same day until March 21, 2021.  BANA denies that it has not credited Graham’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account since November 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge 
and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 
371, and therefore denies them. 
372. BANA denies that Grant began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in October 2020.  BANA admits 
that Grant’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had transactions totaling at least 
$1,000 in June 2021, but denies that these transactions on Grant’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in June 2021 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Grant contacted 
BANA regarding alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on June 7, 
2021.  BANA admits that a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
informed Grant that BANA would issue her a replacement card.  BANA denies that 
it has not credited Grant’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account with any money since 
June 7, 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny 
the remaining allegations in Paragraph 372, and therefore denies them. 
373. [Removed] 
374. BANA denies that Grimes began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in January 2021.  BANA 
denies that there was fraud or unauthorized transactions on Grimes’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account.  BANA admits that Grimes’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
had a balance of $0 during January 2021.  BANA denies that Grimes contacted 
BANA regarding alleged fraud or unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in January 2021, but avers that Grimes contacted BANA 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4021     Page
107 of 214

 
108 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
regarding alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 2021. 
BANA admits that, in response to Grimes contacting BANA regarding alleged 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, a BANA prepaid 
debit card call center representative told Grimes that BANA would issue him a 
replacement EDD Prepaid Debit Card.  BANA admits it sent Grimes multiple 
replacement EDD Prepaid Debit Cards between January 2021 and April 2021.  
BANA denies that each time BANA sent Grimes a replacement EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card, “more fraud would occur.”  BANA denies that Grimes’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was ever frozen, and therefore also denies Grimes’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account was ever unfrozen.  BANA denies that it has not credited 
Grimes’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account with any money since January 2021.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 374, and therefore denies them. 
375. [Removed] 
376. BANA denies that Guirguis began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in July 2020.  BANA 
denies that Guirguis contacted BANA regarding his EDD Prepaid Debit Card having 
been stolen in September 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a 
BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told him in response.  BANA 
admits that Guirguis’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account reflected transactions in the 
60 days prior to September 2020, but denies that these transactions on Guirguis’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in the 60 days prior to September 2020 were 
unauthorized.  BANA denies that Guirguis contacted BANA regarding alleged 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 
2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call 
center representative told him in response.  BANA denies that Guirguis ever filed an 
alleged unauthorized transaction or error claim with BANA concerning any alleged 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4022     Page
108 of 214

 
109 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
fraudulent activity on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account and therefore denies that 
there was an alleged unauthorized transaction claim for BANA to investigate.  BANA 
lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 376, and therefore denies them. 
377. BANA admits that Gutcher began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in May 2020.  BANA 
admits that Gutcher’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had transactions totaling at 
least $5,430 in May 2020, but denies that these transactions on Gutcher’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in May 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that 
Gutcher contacted BANA regarding alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in June 2020.  BANA denies that a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative informed Gutcher that BANA could not issue her a replacement Card 
until she verified her identity with EDD, and denies that a BANA prepaid debit card 
call center representative suggested she file a police report.  BANA denies that 
BANA froze Gutcher’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in June 2020, but avers 
that BANA blocked Gutcher’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in June 2020.  
BANA admits that Gutcher’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in 
early February 2021.  BANA denies that it has not credited Gutcher’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account since June 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 377, and therefore 
denies them. 
378. [Removed] 
379. BANA admits that Gutierrez began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in July 2020.  BANA 
denies that there was fraud on Gutierrez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA 
denies that Gutierrez contacted BANA regarding alleged fraud or unauthorized 
transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in August 2020, and therefore 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4023     Page
109 of 214

 
110 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told her in response.  BANA denies that Gutierrez’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account was frozen in August 2020.  BANA denies that Gutierrez’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in April 2021.  BANA denies that it has 
not credited Gutierrez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account since August 2020.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 379, and therefore denies them. 
380. [Removed] 
381. BANA admits that Hakopian began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March or April 2020.  
BANA denies that Hakopian experienced fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in October 2020.  BANA denies that Hakopian contacted BANA to report 
alleged fraud or unauthorized transaction on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
October 2020, but avers that Hakopian contacted BANA to report allegedly 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 
2020.  BANA denies that a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told 
Hakopian that BANA would freeze his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account while 
BANA investigated the alleged fraud on Hakopian’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account.  BANA denies that Hakopian’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever 
frozen, and therefore also denies his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever 
unfrozen.  BANA denies that it has not credited Hakopian’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account since October 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 381, and therefore denies them. 
382. BANA denies that Hanes began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in September 2020.  BANA admits 
that a transaction for $63 took place on Hanes’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
on December 4, 2020, but denies that this transaction on Hanes’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4024     Page
110 of 214

 
111 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
Card Account on December 4, 2020 was unauthorized.  BANA admits that Hanes 
contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on 
December 4, 2020.  BANA admits that, on the December 4, 2020 call, a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative informed Hanes that BANA would 
investigate Hanes’s alleged claim.  BANA admits that Hanes’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was frozen in December 2020.  BANA denies that Hanes’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in June 2021, but avers that Hanes’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen on February 18, 2021.  BANA denies that 
it credited Hanes’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $65 in June 2021, but avers 
that BANA credited Hanes’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $63 on May 20, 
2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 382, and therefore denies them. 
383. BANA admits that Haney contacted BANA to report that someone had 
opened an EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in his name and requested more 
information concerning his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in August 2020.  
BANA denies that a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told Haney 
that he needed to speak with EDD to “resolve his issue,” and avers that a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative helped Haney change his security 
questions and email address, and then informed Haney that he would need to update 
his mailing address with EDD to receive a replacement EDD Prepaid Debit Card in 
accordance with the terms of Cardholder Agreement and BANA’s contract with 
EDD.  BANA lacks information and knowledge sufficient to admit or deny 
allegations regarding contacts Haney had with EDD, and therefore denies them.  
BANA denies that there was a freeze or block on Haney’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in August 2020, and therefore denies that a freeze or block prevented Haney 
from accessing his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in August 2020.  BANA denies 
that, “immediately upon trying to use” his EDD Prepaid Debit Card, Haney contacted 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4025     Page
111 of 214

 
112 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 to inquire about a freeze or block on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, 
and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told him in response.  BANA denies that a BANA prepaid debit card 
call center representative failed to provide information over the telephone or any 
additional information as to why a freeze or block was placed on his EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that Haney contacted BANA every month to 
report his inability to access his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, or to request 
additional information concerning his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account status, and 
therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told him in response.  BANA denies that, beginning in August 2020, 
Haney contacted BANA “numerous times per week” to request additional 
information concerning his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account status, and therefore 
denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told him in response.  BANA admits that, in August 2020, Haney’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a balance of approximately $14,240, but 
denies that, since August 2020, Haney has not had access to his EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account.  BANA denies that, since August 2020, BANA has not provided 
Haney any information resulting from any investigation surrounding the placement 
of freezes or blocks on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 383, and therefore denies them. 
384. [Removed] 
385. BANA admits that Harden began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in January 2021.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling approximately $5,000 took place on Harden’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021, but denies that these transactions on 
Harden’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021 were unauthorized.  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4026     Page
112 of 214

 
113 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 admits that Harden contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on her EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021, but denies that a BANA prepaid debit 
card call center representative told her that she would be reimbursed for the 
transactions while BANA investigated her alleged claim and denies that money was 
stolen from her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that it has not 
credited Harden’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account since January 2021.  BANA 
lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 385, and therefore denies them. 
386. BANA admits that Harper began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in May 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $1,100 took place on Harper’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in February 2021, but denies that these transactions on Harper’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in February 2021 were unauthorized.  BANA 
denies that Harper contacted BANA in March 2021, and therefore denies the 
allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told him 
in response.  BANA denies that Harper’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever 
frozen, and therefore also denies his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever 
unfrozen.  BANA denies that it has not credited Harden’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 386, and therefore denies them. 
387. BANA denies that Harris began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in April 2020.  BANA denies that 
Harris’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was restricted on September 7, 2020, but 
avers that Harris’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen on September 25, 
2020.  BANA denies that Harris contacted BANA in September 2020, and therefore 
denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told him in response.  BANA denies that BANA did not give Harris 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4027     Page
113 of 214

 
114 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
any information, documents or reasoning as to why his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was frozen.  BANA denies that Harris’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
was unrestricted on November 21, 2020, but avers that Harris’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was unfrozen on December 16, 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 387 
and therefore denies them. 
388. [Removed] 
389. BANA admits that Hart received EDD unemployment benefits through 
a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card, but denies that BANA “maintains 
supervision and control” over the EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA admits 
that BANA received personal identifiable information related to Hart from EDD, but 
denies that it received information concerning his income level and banking 
information from Hart in relation to his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA 
admits that, upon receipt of this information, BANA securely stored or otherwise 
archived this information, but denies that BANA was “entrusted with and maintained 
control” of this information.  BANA denies that a hacker was able to access BANA’s 
technical system, and denies that a hacker gained access to Hart’s personal 
identifiable information or EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account information by gaining 
access to any of BANA’s systems.  BANA admits that Hart contacted BANA to 
report alleged fraud regarding an ATM withdrawal on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account, but BANA denies that there was an unauthorized ATM withdrawal on his 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA admits that a BANA prepaid debit card 
call center representative helped Hart file an alleged unauthorized transaction claim 
concerning an ATM withdrawal on Hart’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA 
denies that BANA “canceled or froze” Hart’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card as a result of 
him filing an alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA admits that there was 
an ATM withdrawal on Hart’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $853 that posted 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4028     Page
114 of 214

 
115 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
on April 7, 2021, but denies that this withdrawal on Hart’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was unauthorized.  BANA admits that it did not temporarily credit Hart’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that it did not properly investigate 
and remedy the alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  The allegations in Paragraph 
389 regarding BANA’s investigation, the timing of BANA’s payment of Hart’s 
alleged unauthorized transaction claim, and obligations under relevant law state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them.  BANA admits that it sent Hart a letter dated April 8, 2021.  
BANA states the letter speaks for itself, and denies any allegations inconsistent with 
its contents.  BANA admits that it reconsidered Hart’s alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim and credited Hart’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $853 on 
or about May 10, 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit 
or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 389, and therefore denies them. 
390. [Removed] 
391. BANA admits that Hayden began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in August 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $500 took place on Hayden’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in October 2020, but denies that these transactions on Hayden’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in October 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA 
denies that Hayden contacted BANA in October 2020, and therefore denies the 
allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her 
in response.  BANA denies that it has not credited Hayden’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account since October 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 391, and therefore denies them. 
392. BANA denies that Heinz began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA denies that 
there was a freeze or block on Heinz’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4029     Page
115 of 214

 
116 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
September 29, 2020, and therefore denies that a freeze or block prevented Heinz from 
accessing her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on September 29, 2020.  BANA 
denies that Heinz contacted BANA in September 2020, and denies that Heinz ever 
filed an unauthorized transaction or error claim with BANA concerning any alleged 
fraudulent activity on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that 
Heinz contacted BANA on the fourth day following September 29, 2020, and 
therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told her in response.  BANA denies that there was a freeze or block on 
Heinz’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in October 2020, and therefore denies that 
a freeze or block prevented Heinz from accessing her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in October 2020.  BANA denies that it sent Heinz a Western Union for 
$1,317 in or around October 2020 and then issued Heinz a new EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card.  BANA denies that BANA never provided any additional information to Heinz 
with regard as to why her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen or blocked.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 392, and therefore denies them. 
393. BANA denies that Ronnie Hernandez began receiving EDD 
unemployment benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 
2020.  BANA admits that transactions totaling at least $600 took place on Ronnie 
Hernandez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020, but denies that 
these transactions on Ronnie Hernandez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
November 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies that Ronnie Hernandez’s Prepaid 
Debit Card Account was frozen in November 2020, but avers that Ronnie 
Hernandez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen on December 1, 2020.  
BANA denies that Ronnie Hernandez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account has not 
been unfrozen.  BANA denies that it has not credited Ronnie Hernandez’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account since November 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4030     Page
116 of 214

 
117 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 393, 
and therefore denies them. 
394. BANA admits that Ruben Hernandez began receiving EDD 
unemployment benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in August 
2020.  BANA denies that Ruben Hernandez contacted BANA in November 2020, 
and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told him in response.  BANA denies that EDD unemployment benefits 
had not been loaded onto Ruben Hernandez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
between August and November 2020.  BANA denies that Ruben Hernandez’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever frozen or blocked.  BANA denies that Ruben 
Hernandez requested additional information and documentation concerning an 
alleged freeze or block on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and admits that 
BANA never provided any additional information concerning an alleged freeze or 
block, because his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was never frozen or blocked.  
BANA denies that a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told Ruben 
Hernandez to contact EDD to re-verify his identity in November 2020.  BANA lacks 
information and knowledge sufficient to admit or deny allegations regarding contacts 
Ruben Hernandez had with EDD, and therefore denies them.  BANA denies that 
Ruben Hernandez contacted BANA “over 200 times” to inquire about the status of 
his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and denies that BANA failed to provide any 
information to Ruben Hernandez regarding a freeze or a block on his EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account, because Ruben Hernandez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
was never frozen or blocked.  BANA denies that Ruben Hernandez contacted BANA 
to inquire about the status of his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021, 
and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told him in response.  BANA denies that Ruben Hernandez did not 
have access to his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021.  BANA denies 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4031     Page
117 of 214

 
118 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
that Ruben Hernandez requested additional information about an alleged freeze or 
block on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021.  BANA denies that 
a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told Ruben Hernandez that “if 
he dropped his fraud claim, and [did] not request access to the funds in the Account 
from August until November ($900.00 every two weeks)” that BANA would “give 
Ruben access to his Account moving forward.”  BANA denies that Ruben 
Hernandez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever frozen or blocked, and 
therefore denies that BANA “removed the restricted access to [his] account in 
January 2021.”  BANA denies that, since November 2020, BANA has not given 
Ruben Hernandez “access” to his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 394, and therefore denies them. 
395. [Removed] 
396. [Removed] 
397. BANA denies that Holloway began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in May 2020.  BANA 
denies that Holloway’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a balance of negative 
$13,000 in July 2020, and denies that he experienced fraud or unauthorized 
transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in July 2020.  BANA denies 
that Holloway contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in July 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative told him in response.  BANA denies that 
Holloway’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in July 2020, and therefore 
denies that Holloway’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in March 
2021.  BANA denies that it has not credited Holloway’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 397, and therefore denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4032     Page
118 of 214

 
119 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
398. BANA denies that Horath began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in January or February 2020.  
BANA admits that transactions totaling at least $300 took place on Horath’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020, but denies that these transactions on 
Horath’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020 were unauthorized.  
BANA admits that Horath contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on her EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020.  BANA admits that, in response to 
Horath contacting BANA to report alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in November 2020, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
issued Horath a replacement EDD Prepaid Debit Card, but denies that a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative told Horath that there was “nothing they 
could do regarding reimbursement.”  BANA admits that transactions totaling at least 
$200 took place on Horath’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020, 
but denies that these transactions on Horath’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
December 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies that Horath contacted BANA to 
report alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020, and 
therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told her in response.  BANA denies that Horath’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was frozen in December 2020.  BANA denies that Horath’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in May 2021.  BANA admits that it 
credited Horath’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $268.54, but denies that 
credit was made in May 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient 
to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 398, and therefore denies 
them. 
399. BANA admits that Howze began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in May 2020.  BANA 
denies Howze’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever frozen or blocked, and 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4033     Page
119 of 214

 
120 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
therefore denies that it was ever unfrozen or unblocked.  BANA denies that Howze 
contacted BANA in January 2021.  BANA denies that it failed to provide any 
information to Howze regarding a freeze or block on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account because no freeze or block on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
ever in place.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny 
the remaining allegations in Paragraph 399, and therefore denies them. 
400. [Removed] 
401. BANA denies that Hutchins began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in July 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $3,000 took place on Hutchins’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in late July and early August 2020, but denies that these 
transactions on Hutchins’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in late July or early 
August 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies that Hutchins contacted BANA to 
report alleged fraud or allegedly unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in late July or early August 2020, denies that Hutchins ever filed an 
alleged unauthorized transaction or error claim with BANA concerning any alleged 
fraudulent activity on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and therefore denies the 
allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her 
in response.  BANA denies that transactions totaling at least $1,000 took place on 
Hutchins’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in late December 2020.  BANA denies 
that Hutchins contacted BANA in December 2020 to alleged report fraud or allegedly 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and therefore 
denies that a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told Hutchins that 
BANA would send her a new BANA EDD Prepaid Debit Card in December 2020.  
BANA denies Hutchin’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever frozen, and 
therefore also denies it was ever unfrozen.  BANA denies that it has not credited 
Hutchins’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account since July 2020.  BANA lacks 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4034     Page
120 of 214

 
121 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 401, and therefore denies them. 
402. BANA denies that Huynh began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in May 2020.  BANA denies that 
Huynh’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever frozen or blocked, and therefore 
denies that it was ever unfrozen or unblocked.  BANA denies that Huynh contacted 
BANA to inquire about any alleged freezes or blocks on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in or around June 2020, and therefore denies that it failed to provide any 
information to Huynh regarding freezes or blocks on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account, also because no freeze or block on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
was ever in place.  BANA denies that transactions totaling approximately $17,000 
took place on Huynh’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in the 60 days prior to 
October 2020.  BANA admits that Huynh contacted BANA to report alleged 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in October 2020, 
but denies that the transactions referenced in Paragraph 402 were unauthorized.  
BANA admits that, on this call, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
authenticated Hyunh as the caller and accessed and reviewed certain information 
relating to Huynh’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that it has not 
credited Huynh’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account related to the transactions 
referenced in Paragraph 402.  BANA denies that it did not provide any notification, 
in writing or otherwise, as to how it reached its conclusion after conducting an 
investigation into Huynh’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim or what documents 
it replied upon in doing so.  The allegations in Paragraph 402 regarding BANA’s 
investigation of Huynh’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim and obligations 
under relevant law state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the 
extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  BANA denies that Huynh 
contacted BANA “day after day.”  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4035     Page
121 of 214

 
122 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 402, and therefore 
denies them. 
403. BANA denies that Idemudia began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in May 2020.  BANA 
admits that there were two transactions totaling approximately $1,700 on Idemudia’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020, but denies that these 
transactions on Idemudia’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020 
were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Idemudia contacted BANA to report alleged 
fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020.  BANA admits 
that a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative assisted Idemudia by filing 
an alleged unauthorized transaction claim and informed Idemudia that BANA would 
investigate Idemudia’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA admits that 
Idemudia’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in September 2020.  BANA 
admits that Idemudia’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in October 
2020.  BANA denies that it has not credited Idemudia’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account since September 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient 
to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 403, and therefore denies 
them. 
404. BANA denies that Isles began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in April 2020.  BANA admits that 
transactions totaling at least $1,700 took place on Isles’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account within 60 days prior to October 2020, but denies that those transactions on 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Isles 
contacted BANA in October 2020 to report alleged unauthorized transactions for 
approximately $1,700 that took place on Isles’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
October 2020.  BANA admits that, on this call, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative authenticated Isles as the caller and accessed and reviewed certain 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4036     Page
122 of 214

 
123 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
information relating to Isles’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that 
it refused to provide Isles with information, documentation, and credit.  BANA 
denies that it has not credited Isles’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA 
denies that it failed to provide any additional notification, in writing or otherwise, as 
to how it reached its conclusion in investigating Isles’s alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim.  The allegations in Paragraph 403 regarding BANA’s investigation 
of Isles’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim and obligations under relevant law 
state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
required, BANA denies them.  BANA denies that Isles’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was frozen or blocked in October 2020.  BANA denies that Isles contacted 
BANA to inquire about the status of her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in October 
2020, and denies that it failed to provide any information to Isles regarding a freeze 
or a block on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 404, 
and therefore denies them. 
405. BANA denies that Jabara began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in February 2020.  BANA admits 
that transactions totaling at least $3,600 took place on Jabara’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in March 2021, but denies that those transactions on his EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Jabara contacted BANA 
in March 2021 to report alleged fraud that took place on Jabara’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in March 2021.  BANA denies that, in response to his alleged fraud 
claim, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told Jabara that he 
“needed to resolve his issue with EDD.”  BANA admits that BANA froze Jabara’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 2021.  BANA denies that it has not 
unfrozen Jabar’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that it has not 
credited Jabara’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account since March 2021.  BANA lacks 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4037     Page
123 of 214

 
124 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 405, and therefore denies them. 
406. BANA denies that Jackson began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in April 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $880 took place on Jackson’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in February 2021, but denies that those transactions on her EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Jackson 
contacted BANA in March 2021 to report alleged fraud that took place on Jackson’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in February 2021.  BANA denies that, in response 
to her alleged unauthorized transaction claim, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative blamed EDD and told Jackson that she “needed to talk to EDD to 
resolve her issue.”  BANA admits that Jackson’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
was frozen in February 2021.  BANA admits that Jackson’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was unfrozen in April 2021.  BANA admits that it credited Jackson’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account for $880 in April 2021, but denies that money was stolen 
from Jackson’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 406, 
and therefore denies them. 
407. [Removed] 
408. [Removed] 
409. BANA admits that E. Johnson began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in June 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $460 took place on E. Johnson’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020, but denies that those transactions on 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account were unauthorized.  BANA admits that E. 
Johnson contacted BANA in December 2020 to report alleged fraud that took place 
on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020.  BANA denies that, in 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4038     Page
124 of 214

 
125 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
response to her alleged unauthorized transaction claim, BANA prepaid debit card call 
center representatives transferred E. Johnson from “department to department and 
refused to give her a straight answer.”  BANA admits that E. Johnson’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account was frozen in December 2020.  BANA denies that E. Johnson’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in April 2021, but avers that E. 
Johnson’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in March 2021 and then 
blocked until March 29, 2021.  BANA admits that it credited E. Johnson’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account for $463 in April 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 409, 
and therefore denies them. 
410. BANA admits that L. Johnson began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in January 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $800 took place on L. Johnson’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 2021, but denies that those transactions on his 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account were unauthorized.  BANA admits that L. Johnson 
contacted BANA in March 2021 to report alleged fraud that took place on L. 
Johnson’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that, in response to his 
alleged unauthorized transaction claim, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told L. Johnson that he “needed to talk to EDD to resolve his issue.”  
BANA admits that transactions totaling at least $680 took place on L. Johnson’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in May 2021, but denies that those transactions on his 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account were unauthorized.  BANA admits that L. Johnson 
contacted BANA in May 2021 to report alleged fraud that took place on L. Johnson’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that, in response to his alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
told L. Johnson that BANA would “need to freeze” L. Johnson’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account.  BANA admits that L. Johnson’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4039     Page
125 of 214

 
126 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
was frozen in March 2021.  BANA denies that L. Johnson’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was unfrozen in May 2021, but avers that L. Johnson’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was unfrozen in March 2021 and then blocked until March 30, 2021.  
BANA denies that L. Johnson’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever frozen 
for a second time, and therefore also denies his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
was unfrozen.  BANA admits that it credited L. Johnson’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account for the transactions included in his March 2021 alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim in May 2021.  BANA denies that it did not credit L. Johnson’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account for the transactions included in his May 2021 alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient 
to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 410, and therefore denies 
them. 
411. [Removed] 
412. BANA denies that Jones began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in June 2020.  BANA denies that 
transactions totaling approximately $6,000 took place on Jones’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in November 2020.  BANA admits that Jones contacted BANA in 
November 2020 to report alleged fraud that took place on his EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account.  BANA denies that, in response to his alleged unauthorized transaction 
claim, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told Jones that “he 
should suspend his Card to avoid more fraudulent transactions.”  BANA denies that 
Jones’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in December 2020, and denies 
that Jones’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account has not been unfrozen.  BANA denies 
that it has not credited Jones’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account since November 
2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 412, and therefore denies them. 
413. [Removed] 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4040     Page
126 of 214

 
127 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
414. [Removed] 
415. [Removed] 
416. [Removed] 
417. [Removed] 
418. BANA denies that Laxton began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in February 2020.  BANA 
admits that Laxton’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in September 
2020.  BANA admits that Laxton contacted BANA to inquire about the status of her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020.  BANA denies that it failed to 
provide Laxton information over the phone or additional information as to why her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen, and denies that she was disconnected 
or waited hours on hold.  BANA denies that Laxton ever filed an unauthorized 
transaction or error claim with BANA concerning any alleged fraudulent activity on 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 418, and therefore 
denies them. 
419. [Removed] 
420. [Removed] 
421. BANA denies that Lopez began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2019.  BANA admits 
that transactions totaling at least $1,500 took place on Lopez’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in February 2021, but denies that those transactions on her EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Lopez contacted 
BANA in February 2021 to report alleged fraud that took place on her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that, in response to her alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told Lopez 
that BANA “could not help her” and that Lopez “needed to resolve his issue with 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4041     Page
127 of 214

 
128 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
EDD.”  BANA admits that Lopez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in 
February 2021.  The allegations in Paragraph 421 regarding the legality of BANA’s 
freezing of Lopez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account state legal conclusions to 
which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them.  BANA denies that it has not unfrozen Lopez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account.  BANA denies that it has not credited Lopez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account since February 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 421, and therefore denies them. 
422. [Removed] 
423. [Removed] 
424. BANA denies that Madrid began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in April 2020.  BANA 
denies that Madrid’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen or blocked in 
November 2020, but avers that Madrid’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
frozen in December 2020.  BANA denies that Madrid contacted BANA to inquire 
about the status of his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020, but 
avers that Madrid contacted BANA to inquire about the status of his EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account and to request additional information regarding the freeze in 
December 2020.  BANA denies that it failed to provide Madrid information over the 
phone or additional information as to why his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
frozen.  BANA admits that, on a December 2020 call, a BANA prepaid debit card 
call center representative authenticated Madrid as the caller and accessed and 
reviewed certain information relating to Madrid’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  
BANA admits that Madrid requested additional information regarding the freeze and 
access to his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but denies that BANA refused to 
provide and never did provide Madrid with the requested additional information or 
documentation regarding the freeze or access to EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4042     Page
128 of 214

 
129 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 424, and therefore denies them. 
425. BANA denies that Magallan began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in July 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $80 took place on Magallan’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in December 2020, but denies that those transactions on his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Magallan 
contacted BANA in December 2020 to report alleged fraud that took place on his 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA admits that a BANA prepaid debit card 
call center representative assisted Magallan by filing an alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim.  BANA admits that BANA froze Magallan’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in December 2020.  BANA denies that Magallan’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was unfrozen in February 2021, and avers that Magallan’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in January 2021.  BANA denies that it has 
not credited Magallan’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account since December 2020.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 425, and therefore denies them. 
426. BANA denies that Main began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in February 2020.  BANA denies 
that transactions totaling at least $5,000 took place on Main’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in July 2020.  BANA denies that Main contacted BANA in July 2020 
to report alleged fraud or allegedly unauthorized transactions that took place on 
Main’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but avers that Main contacted BANA in 
August 2020 to report alleged fraud that took place on Magallan’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that, in response to his alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told Main 
that he “needed to talk to EDD to resolve his issue or would just drop his call 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4043     Page
129 of 214

 
130 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
altogether.”  BANA denies that Main’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen 
in October 2020.  BANA denies that Main’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account is 
currently frozen.  BANA denies that it credited Main’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account for $5,000 in October 2020, and that it “immediately reversed” a $5,000 
credit in October 2020.  BANA denies that Main’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
had a balance of negative $5,000 in October 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 426, 
and therefore denies them. 
427. BANA denies that Martinez began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA 
denies that Martinez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in January 2021, 
but avers that Martinez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in March 
2021.  BANA denies that Martinez contacted BANA to inquire about the status of 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021, but avers that Martinez 
contacted BANA to inquire about the status of her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
in March 2021.  BANA denies that, in response to Martinez inquiring about the status 
of her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative “only told her she needed to speak to EDD and verify her identify with 
EDD before Bank of America could do anything.”  BANA admits Martinez’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in March 2021 and then blocked until 
April 2, 2021.  BANA denies that it has not credited Martinez’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account since January 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 427, and therefore 
denies them. 
428. BANA denies that Matson began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $560 took place on Matson’s EDD Prepaid 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4044     Page
130 of 214

 
131 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
Debit Card Account in January 2021, but denies that those transactions on his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Matson 
contacted BANA in January 2021 to report alleged fraud that took place on his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that, in response to his alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
told Matson that he “needed to talk to EDD to resolve his issue.”  BANA admits that 
Matson’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in January 2021.  BANA 
admits that EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in March 2021 and then 
blocked until March 22, 2021.  BANA denies that it has not credited Matson’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account since January 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 428, 
and therefore denies them. 
429. [Removed] 
430. [Removed] 
431. [Removed] 
432. [Removed] 
433. BANA admits that it issued Meza an EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a 
magnetic stripe in accordance with the terms of BANA’s contract with EDD to access 
her EDD unemployment benefits.  BANA admits that Meza began receiving EDD 
unemployment benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in mid-
2020.  BANA denies that Meza’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a balance of 
$2.76 in September 2020.  BANA admits that there were transactions for ride share 
companies and Coach on Meza’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 
2020, and that these transactions were executed in multiple states including New 
York, but denies that these transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
were unauthorized.  BANA admits that there were transactions totaling $6,904.83 on 
Meza’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020, but denies that BANA 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4045     Page
131 of 214

 
132 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
“approved” these transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account and that these 
transactions were unauthorized.  BANA admits that it did not “flag” her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account or notify her of the allegedly unauthorized transactions, but 
denies that Meza would not have been able to view the allegedly unauthorized 
transactions when she logged into her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account online.  
BANA denies that these transactions left Meza’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
in “depletion.”  BANA admits that Meza contacted BANA in September 2020 to 
report alleged unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, 
but denies that these transactions were unauthorized.  BANA denies that Meza’s call 
with BANA was “unproductive.”  BANA lacks knowledge or information sufficient 
to admit or deny Meza’s allegations concerning her alleged visit to an El Centro 
branch of BANA, and therefore denies them.  The allegations in Paragraph 432 
regarding the timeliness of Meza’s reporting of alleged unauthorized transfers state 
legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
required, BANA denies them.  BANA admits that it sent Meza periodic statements 
for her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but denies that the transactions reflected 
on her periodic EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account statements were unauthorized.  
BANA denies that Meza contacted BANA “many more times” or “daily” in 
September and October 2020 to report alleged fraud that took place on Meza’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account and to request a refund for these alleged unauthorized 
transactions.  BANA lacks information and knowledge sufficient to admit or deny 
allegations regarding unspecified calls, and therefore denies them.  BANA denies 
that when Meza contacted BANA to report the allegedly unauthorized transactions 
on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in October 2020, BANA prepaid debit card 
call center representatives would not help her.  BANA denies that BANA did not 
conduct any investigation in response to the reported allegedly unauthorized 
transactions on Meza’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that it did 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4046     Page
132 of 214

 
133 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
not temporarily credit Meza’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account within ten business 
days after receiving notice of the allegedly unauthorized transactions.  BANA admits 
that Meza contacted BANA regarding her alleged unauthorized transaction claim in 
October 2020 and that, in response, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative suggested that Meza call BANA back on the following day to speak 
with a BANA prepaid debit card claims department representative, and provided 
Meza with a number to call.  BANA denies that it represented that agents in BANA’s 
prepaid debit card claims department would be available 24/7, and denies that it was 
under any legal or contractual obligation to do so.  BANA denies that Meza contacted 
BANA again in October 2020 to report “a total of $6,904.83 fraudulent charges 
again,” but avers that Meza contacted BANA in October 2020 to ask BANA to 
reconsider her then-closed alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA denies 
that a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told Meza that the alleged 
unauthorized transactions would be flagged as fraudulent and returned to Meza.  
BANA denies that it never sent Meza communications regarding the alleged fraud 
on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account or the resolution of any alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA denies that it has not credited Meza for the 
transactions alleged in Paragraph 433.  BANA denies that the amount of Meza’s EDD 
unemployment benefits was $167 per week.  BANA denies that Meza’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account was frozen around January 6, 2021, and therefore denies that 
Meza could not access her EDD unemployment benefits around January 6, 2021.  
BANA denies that Meza contacted BANA to inquire about the status of her EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021.  BANA denies that Meza’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever frozen in March 2021.  BANA denies that there 
was roughly $900 of EDD unemployment benefits available in Meza’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account on March 15, 2021.  BANA denies that a BANA prepaid debit 
card call center representative suggested Meza re-verify her identity in order to 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4047     Page
133 of 214

 
134 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
unfreeze her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies it sent Meza a letter 
dated May 19, 2021, but avers that it sent Meza a letter dated May 27, 2021.  BANA 
states that the May 27, 2021 letter speaks for itself, and denies any allegations 
inconsistent with its contents.  BANA denies that the letter dated May 27, 2021 was 
the only letter or notice Meza ever received from BANA related to the alleged fraud 
on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA admits that Meza contacted BANA 
in September 2020 to report alleged unauthorized transactions that took place on 
Meza’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  The allegations in Paragraph 433 
regarding BANA’s investigation of Meza’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim 
state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
required, BANA denies them.  BANA admits that it sent Meza a letter on August 3, 
2020.  BANA states that the letter speaks for itself, and denies any allegations 
inconsistent with its contents.  BANA denies that it withheld $6,904.83 from Meza’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account. The allegations in Paragraph 433 regarding 
BANA’s obligations under relevant law, and whether Meza “upheld her end of the 
Cardholder Agreement and the requirements of EFTA” state legal conclusions to 
which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 433, and therefore denies them. 
434. BANA denies that McCrary began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $900 took place on McCrary’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in February 2021, but denies that those transactions on his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account were unauthorized.  BANA admits that McCrary 
contacted BANA in February 2021 to report alleged fraud that took place on 
McCrary’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in February 2021.  BANA denies that, 
in response to his alleged unauthorized transaction claim, a BANA prepaid debit card 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4048     Page
134 of 214

 
135 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
call center representative “repeatedly” told McCrary that he “needed to resolve his 
issue with EDD.”  BANA admits that BANA froze McCrary’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in February 2021.  BANA admits that McCrary’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was unfrozen in April 2021.  BANA admits that BANA credited 
McCrary’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $900 in May 2021.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 434, and therefore denies them. 
435. [Removed] 
436. [Removed] 
437. [Removed] 
438. BANA denies that S. Morales began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in July 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $1,900 took place on S. Morales’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020, but denies that those transactions 
on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account were unauthorized.  BANA denies that S. 
Morales contacted BANA in September 2020, but avers that S. Morales contacted 
BANA in October 2020 to report alleged fraud that took place on S. Morales’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account, but BANA denies that there was fraud on her EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA admits that, in response to her alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
told S. Morales that BANA would issue her a replacement EDD Prepaid Debit Card.  
BANA denies that the BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told S. 
Morales she would be provided a temporary credit.  BANA admits that S. Morales’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in December 2020.  BANA denies that 
it unfroze S. Morales’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in April 2021, and avers 
that it unfroze S. Morales’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 2021 and 
then blocked it until April 6, 2021.  BANA denies that it credited S. Morales’s EDD 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4049     Page
135 of 214

 
136 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
Prepaid Debit Card Account for $934.58 in November 2020, but avers that it credited 
S. Morales’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $1,011.81 in November 2020.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 438, and therefore denies them. 
439. BANA denies that A. Morales began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA 
denies that A. Morales’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had any transactions in 
July 2020, and denies that he experienced fraud or unauthorized transactions on his 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that A. Morales contacted BANA 
in July 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit 
card call center representative told him in response.  BANA denies that A. Morales’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever frozen, and therefore also denies his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever unfrozen.  BANA admits that it has not 
credited A. Morales’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account since July 2020.  BANA 
lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 439, and therefore denies them. 
440. BANA denies that Morgan began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in late June or early July 
2020.  BANA admits that transactions took place on Morgan’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in the 60 days prior to December 2020, but denies that those 
transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account were unauthorized.  BANA 
denies that Morgan contacted BANA to inquire about the status of her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in December 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about 
what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her in response.  
BANA denies that Morgan’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen or 
blocked in December 2020, and therefore denies that a freeze or block prevented 
Morgan from accessing her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020.  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4050     Page
136 of 214

 
137 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 denies that Morgan had “momentary access” to her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in January 2021 because her account was not frozen or blocked in January 
2021.  BANA denies that there was a freeze or block on Morgan’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in January 2021, and therefore denies that an account freeze 
prevented Morgan from accessing her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 
2021.  BANA denies that Morgan contacted BANA to inquire about the status of her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 440, 
and therefore denies them. 
441. BANA admits that Morrell began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in October 2020.  BANA 
admits that it issued Morell an EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in 
accordance with the terms of BANA’s contract with EDD to access her EDD 
unemployment benefits.  BANA denies that Morrell was the “victim of numerous 
unauthorized transactions” on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and that BANA 
was “unwilling or unable” to credit Morrell’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
relating to her alleged unauthorized transaction claims.  BANA states that the 
Cardholder Agreement speaks for itself, and denies any allegations inconsistent with 
its contents.  BANA denies that there was ever an “administrative hold” on Morrell’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that Morrell began receiving EDD 
unemployment benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 
2020.  BANA admits that Morrell’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a balance 
of approximately $4.00 on October 17, 2020.  BANA admits that Morrell contacted 
BANA on October 17, 2020 to require about the status of her EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account, and that a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
suggested that Morrell should call back to speak with the prepaid debit card claims 
department.  BANA admits that Morrell contacted BANA on October 19, 2020.  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4051     Page
137 of 214

 
138 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 denies that, on the October 19, 2020 call, a BANA prepaid debit card call 
center representative told Morrell that a “fraudster had stolen funds” from her EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account at a “Citibank ATM in Grand Rapids, Illinois,” and 
denies that Morell was told she would receive a temporary credit for the transaction 
referenced in Paragraph 441.  BANA denies that, on the October 19, 2020 call, a 
BANA prepaid debit card call center representative ordered Morrell a replacement 
Card, but avers that, on the October 17 call, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told Morrell that she would be receiving a replacement Card.  BANA 
admits that it sent Morrell a letter dated October 20, 2020.  BANA states the letter 
speaks for itself, and denies any allegations inconsistent with its contents.  BANA 
admits that Morrell contacted BANA on or around October 26, 2020 regarding a 
letter that she received in relation to her alleged unauthorized transaction claim on 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that, on the phone call that 
took place on or around October 26, 2020, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told Morrell that she that “a glitch in the system triggered the letter” 
she received.  BANA denies that Morrell filed a new alleged unauthorized transaction 
claim during this call, but avers that a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative submitted Morrell’s previously reviewed claim for reconsideration.  
BANA admits that a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told Morrell 
that she would have to wait for her alleged unauthorized transaction claim to be 
investigated.  BANA denies that Morrell did not connect with a BANA prepaid debit 
card call center representative on November 2, 2020 to inquire about the status of her 
alleged unauthorized transaction claim on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  
BANA admits that the prepaid debit card claims department was generally open at 
least Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 8 P.M. EST in November 2020, but 
denies any implication that the prepaid debit card claims department was not open 
on Saturdays.  BANA admits that, in response to her status inquiry, a BANA prepaid 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4052     Page
138 of 214

 
139 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
debit card call center representative told Morrell that her alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim was being processed.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny allegations regarding multiple unspecified calls that took 
place in the month of November 2020, and therefore denies them.  BANA admits 
that it did not credit Morrell’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020 
for an alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA denies that Morrell contacted 
BANA on December 17, 2020, but avers that Morrell contacted BANA on December 
18, 2020.  BANA admits that, in response to her December 18, 2020 status inquiry, 
a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative informed Morrell that they were 
unable to provide an estimate as to when she could expect a credit to her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account for her alleged unauthorized transaction claim that was being 
reconsidered.  BANA admits that Morrell submitted her original alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim on October 19, 2020, but denies that the transactions 
included in that alleged unauthorized transaction claim were unauthorized.  BANA 
admits that it had not credited Morrell’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account by 
December 17, 2020 for the transactions alleged in Paragraph 441.  BANA denies that 
Morrell contacted BANA “more than 80 times” between October 19, 2020 and 
December 17, 2020.  BANA denies that it sent Morrell two letters dated December 
30, 2020, but avers that it sent Morrell one letter dated December 30, 2020.  BANA 
states that the letter speaks for itself, and denies any allegations inconsistent with its 
contents.  BANA admits that it permanently credited Morrell’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account for $503 on December 30, 2020.  BANA denies that BANA’s prepaid 
debit card call center never offered Morrell any “meaningful response or assistance” 
and denies that it “stymied Morrell’s efforts at nearly every turn.”  The allegations in 
Paragraph 441 regarding BANA’s investigation of Morrell’s alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim, obligations under relevant law, and whether Morrell “followed 
instructions on Morrell’s Account” state legal conclusions to which no response is 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4053     Page
139 of 214

 
140 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  BANA denies 
that it took “over four months” to credit Morrell’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 441, and therefore denies them. 
442. BANA denies that Morris began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in June 2020.  BANA admits more 
than $900 in transactions occurred on Morris’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
December 2020, but denies that the transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in December 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies that Morris contacted 
BANA in December 2020 to report alleged fraud or allegedly unauthorized 
transactions that took place on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but avers that 
Morris contacted BANA in November 2020 to report alleged fraud that took place 
on Morris’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA admits that, in response to 
her alleged unauthorized transaction claim, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told Morris that they would file an alleged unauthorized transaction 
claim and investigate the alleged fraud.  BANA admits that Morris’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account was frozen in December 2020.  BANA denies that Morris’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in February 2021, but avers that Morris’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in January 2021.  The allegations 
regarding the legality of the alleged freeze on Morris’s EDD Prepaid Debit Account 
state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
required, BANA denies them.  BANA denies that it credited $468 to Morris’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in June 2021, but avers that it credited $333.79 to 
Morris’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in May 2021.  The allegations regarding 
the legality of the alleged freezes on Morriss’s EDD Prepaid Debit Account state 
legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4054     Page
140 of 214

 
141 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
required, BANA denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 442, and therefore denies them. 
443. BANA denies that Mouck began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in either March or April 
2020.  BANA denies that Mouck’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had 
transactions totaling at least $900 in December 2020.  BANA admits that Mouck 
contacted BANA in December 2020 to report alleged fraud that took place on 
Mouck’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but denies that Mouck experienced fraud 
or unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA 
admits that a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told Mouck that 
BANA would investigate her alleged unauthorized transaction claim and assisted 
Mouck by filing an alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA lacks information 
and knowledge sufficient to admit or deny allegations related to unspecified phone 
calls at “other times,” and therefore denies them.  BANA admits that Mouck’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in December 2020.  BANA denies that 
Mouck’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in May 2021, and avers 
that Mouck’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in March 2021 and 
then blocked until March 20, 2021.  BANA denies that it credited Mouck’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account for $200 in May 2021 and $200 in June 2021, but avers 
that it credited Mouck’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $694.12 on May 20, 
2021 and for $1,142.39 on April 6, 2023.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 443, and therefore 
denies them. 
444. BANA denies that R. Murphy began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $350 took place on R. Murphy’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020, but denies that those transactions on 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4055     Page
141 of 214

 
142 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account were unauthorized.  BANA denies that R. 
Murphy contacted BANA in December 2020, and therefore denies the allegations 
about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told him in 
response.  BANA denies that R. Murphy’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
frozen in December 2020, but avers that R. Murphy’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was frozen on January 19, 2021.  BANA admits that R. Murphy’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in early 2021.  BANA admits that it 
credited R. Murphy’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in early 2021.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 444, and therefore denies them. 
445. BANA denies that S. Murphy began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA 
denies that S. Murphy’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had transactions totaling 
at least $5,000 in the 60 days prior to April 2020.  BANA denies that S. Murphy ever 
contacted BANA in April 2020, and therefore denies any allegations regarding the 
substance of any such contact.  BANA also denies that S. Murphy ever filed an 
alleged unauthorized transaction or error claim with BANA concerning any alleged 
fraudulent activity or unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account.  BANA denies S. Murphy’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen 
or blocked in April 2020.  BANA denies that S. Murphy’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was frozen or blocked for “months” in either 2020 or 2021, but admits her 
EDD Prepaid Account was subject to a state disqualified freeze on May 26, 2022 and 
has not been unfrozen since then.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient 
to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 445, and therefore denies 
them. 
446. [Removed] 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4056     Page
142 of 214

 
143 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
447. BANA denies that Ojeda began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in May 2020.  BANA admits that 
transactions totaling at least $2,000 took place on Ojeda’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in July and August 2020, but denies that Ojeda experienced fraud or 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in July and 
August 2020.  BANA denies that Ojeda contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in July 2020, and therefore denies the 
allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her 
in response.  BANA denies that Ojeda’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever 
frozen, and therefore also denies her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever 
unfrozen.  BANA denies that it has not credited Ojeda’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account since July 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 447, and therefore denies them. 
448. [Removed] 
449. [Removed] 
450. BANA admits that Owensby began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in January 2021.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $1,600 took place on Owensby’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021, but denies that Owensby experienced 
fraud or unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
January 2021.  BANA denies that Owensby contacted BANA in January 2021, and 
therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told him in response.  BANA admits that Owensby’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account was frozen in February 2021.  BANA denies that Owensby’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account has not been unfrozen.  BANA denies that it 
credited Owensby’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $1,600 in May 2021, and 
avers that it credited Owensby’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $1,600 in 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4057     Page
143 of 214

 
144 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
April 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 450, and therefore denies them. 
451. BANA denies that Paningbatan began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in February 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $600 took place on Paningbatan’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account between May and October 2020, but denies that 
Paningbatan experienced fraud or unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account between May and October 2020.  BANA admits that 
Paningbatan contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in December 2020.  BANA admits that, on the December 2020 call, a 
BANA prepaid debit card call center representative helped Paningbatan file an 
alleged unauthorized transaction claim and told Paningbatan that BANA would 
investigate her alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA admits that  
Paningbatan’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in December 2020.  The 
allegations regarding the legality of the alleged freeze on Paningbatan’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Account state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent 
a response is required, BANA denies them.  BANA denies that Paningbatan’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in April 2021, and avers that  
Paningbatan’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in March 2021 and 
then blocked it until April 7, 2021.  BANA denies that it credited Paningbatan’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account for $441 in April 2021, and debited the credit for $441 
in May 2021, but avers that it credited Paningbatan’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account for $422.15 in April 2021, and reversed the credit for $422.15 in May 2021.  
BANA admits that Paningbatan’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a negative 
balance in May 2021.  BANA denies that it credited Paningbatan’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account $500 in May 2021, but avers that it credited Paningbatan’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account $523.67 on June 15, 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4058     Page
144 of 214

 
145 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 451, 
and therefore denies them. 
452. BANA denies that Payton began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA admits 
that it issued Payton an EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in accordance 
with the terms of BANA’s contract with EDD to access her EDD unemployment 
benefits.  BANA states that the Cardholder Agreement speaks for itself, and denies 
any allegations inconsistent with its contents.  BANA denies that Payton was the 
“victim of numerous unauthorized transactions” on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account, and that BANA was “unwilling or unable” to credit Payton’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account relating to her alleged unauthorized transaction claims.  BANA 
denies that there was ever an “administrative hold” on Payton’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account.  BANA admits that there was an EDD unemployment benefits deposit 
to Payton’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on November 16, 2020.  BANA admits 
that there was a funds transfer of $200 on November 16, 2020 from Payton’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account, but denies that, after this funds transfer, Payton’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account balance was $683.  BANA denies that Payton’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account had a balance of $0 on November 16, 2020.  BANA 
admits that Payton contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account on November 16, 2020.  BANA admits that, on the November 
16, 2020 call, a BANA prepaid debit card call representative transferred Payton to 
the prepaid debit card claims department.  BANA admits that Payton contacted 
BANA to report alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on November 
17, 2020, and that a BANA prepaid debit card call representative assisted Payton by 
filing an alleged unauthorized transaction claim concerning a balance inquiry and a 
funds withdrawal from her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account that were made at an 
ATM in Chula Vista, but denies that the ATM withdrawal or the balance inquiry 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4059     Page
145 of 214

 
146 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Payton contacted BANA to inquire about the 
status of her alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA denies that it did not 
credit Payton’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account regarding her alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim, and denies that it allowed any funds to be stolen from Payton.  
BANA admits that a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told Payton 
that she needed to verify her identity for her alleged claim to be investigated, but 
denies that a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told Payton that 
BANA would not proceed with her alleged claim until her identity had been verified 
with EDD.  BANA lacks information and knowledge sufficient to admit or deny 
allegations regarding Payton’s contact with EDD, and therefore denies them.  BANA 
admits that it issued Payton a replacement Card prior to November 30, 2020.  BANA 
admits that there was an EDD unemployment benefits deposit to Payton’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account on November 30, 2020.  BANA admits that there was 
an EDD unemployment benefits deposit to Payton’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account on December 17, 2020.  BANA admits that Payton’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was frozen on December 17, 2020, but denies that BANA never 
provided Payton with a notice regarding the freeze or other additional information as 
to why a freeze was placed on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA admits 
that Payton’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen three months later, in 
March 2021 and then blocked until March 29, 2021.  BANA denies that it has no 
“reasonable method to identify and prevent fraud.”  BANA denies that Payton’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen without providing notice, reason, or 
justification for the freeze.  BANA admits that Payton contacted BANA to inquire 
about the status of her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and that a BANA prepaid 
debit card call center representative told Payton that her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was frozen due to fraudulent activity.  BANA denies that, in response, a 
BANA prepaid debit card call center representative refused to unfreeze Payton’s 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4060     Page
146 of 214

 
147 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, or that it “put the fault and responsibility of the 
freeze on EDD.”  BANA admits that it sent Payton written notice of the freeze on her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in February 2021.  BANA admits that it sent 
Payton written notice of the freeze on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 
2021.  BANA states that the written notices from February 2021 and March 2021 
speak for themselves, and deny any allegations inconsistent with their contents.  
BANA denies that Payton contacted BANA in March 2021 to inquire about the status 
of her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and therefore denies the allegations about 
what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her in response.  The 
allegations in Paragraph 452 regarding whether Payton “followed instructions on 
Bank of America’s Account agreement” state legal conclusions to which no response 
is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  BANA denies 
that BANA’s customer service department offered Payton “no meaningful response 
or assistance for almost four months” and denies that it “stymied Payton’s efforts at 
nearly every turn.”  The allegations in Paragraph 452 regarding BANA’s 
investigation of Payton’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim and obligations 
under relevant law state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the 
extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 452, 
and therefore denies them. 
453. BANA denies that Pena began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in July 2020.  BANA denies that 
transactions totaling at least $2,400 took place on Pena’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in September 2020, and denies that Pena experienced fraud or unauthorized 
transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that Pena 
contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
September 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4061     Page
147 of 214

 
148 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
debit card call center representative told him in response.  BANA denies that Pena 
ever filed an alleged unauthorized transaction or error claim with BANA concerning 
any alleged fraudulent activity on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA 
denies that Pena’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in September 2020.  
BANA denies that Pena’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account has not been unfrozen 
since September 2020.  The allegations regarding the legality of the alleged freeze 
on Pena’s EDD Prepaid Debit Account state legal conclusions to which no response 
is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  BANA admits 
that it has not credited Pena’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account since September 
2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 453, and therefore denies them. 
454. BANA denies that Perez began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA denies that 
transactions totaling approximately $14,000 took place on Perez’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in the 60 days prior to September 2020.  BANA admits that 
Perez contacted BANA to report alleged unauthorized transactions on her EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020, but denies that those transactions 
on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account were unauthorized.  BANA admits that 
when Perez contacted BANA to report the allegedly unauthorized transactions on her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative authenticated Perez as the caller and accessed and reviewed  certain 
information relating to Perez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies 
that, in response to Perez’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim, BANA “refused 
to provide” Perez with information, documentation, and credit.  BANA denies that it 
never credited Perez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that it failed 
to provide any additional notification, in writing or otherwise, as to how it reached 
its conclusion in investigating Perez’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4062     Page
148 of 214

 
149 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 denies that Perez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen or blocked 
in September 2020, and therefore denies that a freeze or block prevented Perez from 
accessing her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020.  BANA denies 
that Perez contacted BANA to inquire about why a freeze or block was placed on her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020, and therefore denies the 
allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her 
in response.  BANA admits Perez did not receive information over the telephone or 
any additional information as to why a freeze was placed on Perez’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in September 2020 because there was not a freeze on Perez’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020.  BANA denies that, since 
September 2020, BANA has not sent Perez any information or documents, or 
provided Perez with access to her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 454, and therefore denies them. 
455. [Removed] 
456. BANA denies that Perkins began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in April 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $13,000 took place on Perkins’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in the 60 days prior to December 2020, but denies that 
these transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in the 60 days prior to 
December 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Perkins contacted BANA to 
report allegedly unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
in December 2020.  BANA admits that when Perkins contacted BANA to report the 
allegedly unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, a 
BANA prepaid debit card call center representative authenticated Perkins as the 
caller and accessed and reviewed certain information relating to Perkins’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that it never credited Perkins’s EDD 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4063     Page
149 of 214

 
150 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that it failed to provide any additional 
notification, in writing or otherwise, as to how it reached its conclusion in 
investigating Perkins’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA denies that, 
in response to Perkins’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim, BANA “refused to 
provide” Perkins with information, documentation, and credit.  BANA denies that 
BANA prepaid debit card call center representatives “continuously told him to 
contact EDD to resolve his issue.”  BANA admits that Perkins’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was frozen in December 2020.  BANA admits that Perkins contacted 
BANA to inquire about the status of his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
December 2020.  BANA denies that a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative failed to provide information over the telephone or any additional 
information as to why a freeze was placed on Perkins’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account.  BANA denies that it has not sent Perkins any information or documents 
concerning his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, denies that it has not credited his 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and denies that it has not unfrozen his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 456, and therefore denies them. 
457. [Removed] 
458. [Removed] 
459. BANA denies that D. Pitts began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in May 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $500 took place on D. Pitts’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in July 2020, but denies that these transactions on his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in July 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies that D. 
Pitts contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in July 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative told him in response.  BANA admits that 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4064     Page
150 of 214

 
151 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
transactions totaling at least $30 took place on D. Pitts’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in August 2020, but denies that these transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in August 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies that D. Pitts 
contacted BANA in August 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a 
BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told him in response.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $600 took place on D. Pitts’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in October 2020, but denies that these transactions on his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in October 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies that 
D. Pitts contacted BANA in October 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about 
what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told him in response.  
BANA admits that transactions totaling at least $430 took place on D. Pitts’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in April 2021, but denies that these transactions on his 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in April 2021 were unauthorized.  BANA admits 
that D. Pitts contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in April 2021.  BANA admits that when D. Pitts contacted BANA to report 
the allegedly unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, a 
BANA prepaid debit card call center representative said BANA would issue him a 
replacement Card, but denies that the BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative said BANA would “freeze” D. Pitts’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account.  BANA denies that D. Pitts’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever 
frozen, and therefore also denies his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever 
unfrozen.  BANA denies that it credited D. Pitts’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
for $80 total in July 2020 or May 2021, and denies that it only credited D. Pitts’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for a total of $80.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 459, 
and therefore denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4065     Page
151 of 214

 
152 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
460. BANA admits that V. Pitts began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in July 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $1,800 took place on V. Pitts’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in July 2020, but denies that these transactions on her EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in July 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that V. 
Pitts contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in July 2020.  BANA admits that when V. Pitts contacted BANA to report 
the allegedly unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, a 
BANA prepaid debit card call center representative said BANA would investigate 
her alleged fraud claim.  BANA denies that V. Pitts’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was ever frozen, and therefore also denies her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was ever unfrozen.  BANA denies that it credited V. Pitts’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account for $1,525.22 in August 2020, and avers that it credited V. Pitts’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $1,635.40 in August 2020.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 460, and therefore denies them. 
461. [Removed] 
462. BANA admits that Pomeroy began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $1,600 took place on Pomeroy’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in June 2020, but denies that these transactions on her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in June 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA admits 
that when Pomeroy contacted BANA to report the allegedly unauthorized 
transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, a BANA prepaid debit card 
call center representative authenticated Pomeroy as the caller and accessed and 
reviewed certain information relating to Pomeroy’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account.  BANA denies that, in response to Pomeroy’s alleged unauthorized 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4066     Page
152 of 214

 
153 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
transaction claim, BANA “refused to provide” Pomeroy with information, 
documentation, and credit.  BANA denies that it never credited Pomeroy’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that it failed to provide any additional 
notification, in writing or otherwise, as to how it reached its conclusion in 
investigating Pomeroy’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA denies that 
every time Pomeroy contacted BANA, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative “would either tell her to talk to EDD or would abruptly end the call 
without giving her any information, must less documents or credit.”  BANA admits 
that Pomeroy’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in August 2020.  
BANA denies that Pomeroy’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in 
December 2020, but avers that Pomeroy’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
unfrozen in October 2020.  BANA admits that Pomeroy contacted BANA to inquire 
about the status of her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in August 2020.  BANA 
lacks information and knowledge sufficient to admit or deny allegations regarding 
unspecified calls, and therefore denies them.  BANA denies that it never provided 
Pomeroy any additional or information regarding the alleged freeze on her Prepaid 
Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 462, and therefore denies them. 
463. [Removed] 
464. [Removed] 
465. BANA denies that Quesada began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in November 2020.  
BANA admits that transactions totaling at least $600 took place on Quesada’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020, but denies that these transactions on 
his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA 
admits that Quesada contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in December 2020.  BANA admits that when Quesada contacted 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4067     Page
153 of 214

 
154 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 to report the allegedly unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative said BANA 
would issue her a replacement Card, but denies that the BANA prepaid debit card 
call center representative said BANA would “freeze” Quesada’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account and denies that the BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
said the papers were required for BANA to consider her alleged unauthorized 
transaction claim.  BANA admits that Quesada’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
was frozen in December 2020.  BANA denies that Quesada’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was unfrozen in May 2021, but avers that Quesada’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account was unfrozen in March 2021 and then blocked until May 3, 2021.  
BANA admits that it credited Quesada’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $600 
in May 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny 
the remaining allegations in Paragraph 465, and therefore denies them. 
466. [Removed] 
467. BANA denies that Raiff began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in August 2020.  BANA denies 
that Raiff’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen or blocked from December 
2020 until February 2021, and therefore denies that a freeze or block prevented Raiff 
from accessing her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account from December 2020 until 
February 2021.  BANA denies that Raiff contacted BANA in December 2020 or 
January 2021, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit 
card call center representative told her in response.  BANA denies that Raiff 
contacted BANA to inquire about a freeze or block placed on her EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account or to request additional information regarding an alleged freeze or 
block in February 2021, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative told her in response.  BANA admits that 
a Raiff did not receive information over the telephone or any additional information 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4068     Page
154 of 214

 
155 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
as to why a freeze or block was placed on Raiff’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
in February 2021 because there was not a freeze or block on Raiff’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account for Raiff to contact BANA in regards to in February 2021.  
BANA denies that Raiff contacted BANA to report a problem with her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid 
debit card call center representative told her in response.  BANA denies that it 
credited Raiff’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $3,000 in February 2021.  
BANA denies that Raiff contacted BANA to inquire about an “incorrect” credit 
amount on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in and to inform BANA that “she 
was missing at least an additional $3,000” in February 2021, and therefore denies the 
allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her 
in response.  BANA denies that it never credited Raiff’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 467, and therefore denies them. 
468. [Removed] 
469. [Removed] 
470. BANA 
admits 
that 
Rima-Fleurima 
began 
receiving 
EDD 
unemployment benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in April 
2020.  BANA denies that there was ever a freeze or block on Rima-Fleurima’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account, and therefore denies that a freeze or block ever 
prevented Rima-Fleurima from accessing his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  
BANA denies that Rima-Fleurima contacted BANA to inquire about the status of his 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account or to request additional information, 
documentations, or access to his funds in May 2021, and therefore denies the 
allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told him 
in response, and denies that BANA failed to respond to any alleged request for 
information or documentation.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4069     Page
155 of 214

 
156 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 470, and therefore denies 
them. 
471. BANA admits that Ritchey began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in December 2020.  
BANA admits that transactions totaling at least $8,000 took place on Ritchey’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021, but denies that these transactions on 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021 were unauthorized.  BANA 
admits that Ritchey logged into her online EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
January 2021.  BANA admits that Ritchey contacted BANA to report alleged fraud 
on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021.  BANA admits that when 
Ritchey contacted BANA to report the allegedly unauthorized transactions on her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative said BANA would issue her a replacement Card.  BANA denies that 
when Ritchey contacted BANA to report the allegedly unauthorized transactions on 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative said BANA would send her paperwork to fill out that would “fix her 
issue.”  BANA denies that it never issued Ritchey a replacement Card.  BANA admits 
that Ritchey’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in January 2021.  
BANA denies that it deactivated Ritchey’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
February 2021.  BANA denies that Ritchey’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account has 
not been unfrozen since January 2021, and avers that Ritchey’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was unfrozen on March 18, 2021 and then blocked until July 21, 2021.  
BANA admits that it has not credited Ritchey’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
since January 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 471, and therefore denies them. 
472. [Removed] 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4070     Page
156 of 214

 
157 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
473. BANA denies that Roa began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in May 2020.  BANA denies that 
Roa’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen or blocked in January 2021, and 
therefore denies that a freeze or block prevented Roa from accessing his EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in January 2021.  BANA denies that Roa contacted BANA to 
inquire about the status of his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021, 
and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told him in response.  BANA denies that there was a freeze or block 
on Roa’s account in January 2021, and therefore BANA admits that Roa did not 
receive information over the telephone or any additional information as to why a 
freeze or block was placed on Roa’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 
2021.  BANA denies that Roa contacted BANA “almost every day” to inquire about 
the status of his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account from January 2021 to April 2021, 
and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative told him in response, and denies that BANA refused to provide or 
failed to respond to any alleged request for information or documentation.  BANA 
lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 473, and therefore denies them. 
474. BANA denies that Robinson began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA 
denies that any transactions took place on Robinson’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in the 60 days prior to March 2020, and denies that any alleged unauthorized 
transactions occurred on Robinson’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA 
denies that Robinson contacted BANA to report unauthorized transactions on her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 2020, and therefore denies the 
allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her 
in response.  BANA denies that Robinson ever filed an alleged unauthorized 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4071     Page
157 of 214

 
158 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
transaction or error claim with BANA concerning any alleged fraudulent activity on 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA admits that it never credited 
Robinson’s account based on or provided information concerning its investigation of 
an alleged unauthorized transaction claim because Robinson never contacted BANA 
regarding or filed an alleged unauthorized transaction or error claim.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 474, and therefore denies them. 
475. [Removed] 
476. [Removed] 
477. BANA denies that Rodriguez began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in May 2020.  BANA 
denies that any transactions took place on Rodriguez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in January 2021, and denies that Rodriguez experienced fraud or 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies 
that Rodriguez contacted BANA in January 2021, and therefore denies the 
allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her 
in response.  BANA denies that Rodriguez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
frozen in January 2021.  BANA denies that Rodriguez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was unfrozen in April 2021.  The allegations regarding the legality of the 
alleged freezes on Rodriguez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Account state legal conclusions 
to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them.  BANA admits that it temporarily credited Rodriguez’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account for $800 in April 2021 and then reversed that temporary credit on May 
17, 2021..  BANA denies that Rodriguez ever had a balance of negative $797.13, but 
avers that Rodriguez had a balance of negative $800.  BANA admits that it credited 
Rodriguez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $2.85 in June 2021.  BANA lacks 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4072     Page
158 of 214

 
159 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 477, and therefore denies them. 
478. BANA admits that Rojas de Charolet received EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card.  BANA admits that it 
issued Rojas de Charolet an EDD Prepaid Debit Card with a magnetic stripe in 
accordance with the terms of BANA’s contract with EDD to access her EDD 
unemployment benefits.  BANA admits that an ATM withdrawal for $700 took place 
on Rojas de Charolet’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on May 21, 2020.  BANA 
admits that an ATM withdrawal for $983 at a Wells Fargo ATM took place on Rojas 
de Charolet’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on May 30, 2020, but denies that 
this ATM withdrawal on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on May 30, 2020 was 
unauthorized.  BANA admits that an ATM withdrawal for $1,000 at a BANA ATM 
took place on Rojas de Charolet’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on May 31, 
2020, but denies that this ATM withdrawal on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
on May 31, 2020 was unauthorized.  BANA admits that an ATM withdrawal for 
$1,000 at a BANA ATM took place on Rojas de Charolet’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account on June 1, 2020, but denies that this ATM withdrawal on her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account on June 1, 2020 was unauthorized.  BANA admits that an ATM 
withdrawal for $483 at a Citibank ATM took place on Rojas de Charolet’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account on June 2, 2020, but denies that this ATM withdrawal 
on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on June 2, 2020 was unauthorized.  BANA 
admits that an ATM withdrawal for $500 took place on Rojas de Charolet’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account on June 2, 2020.  BANA denies that Rojas de Charolet 
contacted BANA to report alleged identity theft on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account on June 2, 2020, but avers that Rojas de Charolet contacted BANA to report 
allegedly unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on June 
2, 2020.  BANA denies that when Rojas de Charolet contacted BANA to report the 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4073     Page
159 of 214

 
160 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
alleged identity theft on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, a BANA prepaid 
debit card call center representative “acknowledged that high numbers of theft were 
being reported” and that she “needed to call another number to process her ID theft 
claim.”  BANA denies that Rojas de Charolet contacted BANA to report the alleged 
fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on any day other than June 2, 2020, 
and therefore denies any allegations about the substance of any alleged calls taking 
place after June 2, 2020 and about any actions BANA took during those calls, but 
admits that Rojas de Charolet’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was suspended 
based on her request on June 2, 2020.  BANA denies that BANA ever received a 
completed FTC fraud affidavit from Rojas de Charolet.  BANA denies that Rojas de 
Charolet had money stolen from her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, but admits 
that BANA has not credited her for the transactions referenced in Paragraph 478.  
BANA denies that BANA received a letter from Rojas de Charolet dated on or about 
September 24, 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or 
deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 478, and therefore denies them. 
479. BANA denies that Rodriguez Romo began receiving EDD 
unemployment benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in 
February 2021.  BANA admits that transactions totaling at least $1,000 took place 
on Rodriguez Romo’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 2021, but denies 
that these transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 2021 were 
unauthorized.  BANA admits that Rodriguez Romo contacted BANA to report 
alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 2021.  BANA denies 
that when Rodriguez Romo contacted BANA to report the allegedly unauthorized 
transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, a BANA prepaid debit card 
call center representative said they were “unable to help him” and that he “need to 
contact EDD to resolve his issue.”  BANA denies that Rodriguez Romo’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever frozen, and therefore also denies his EDD 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4074     Page
160 of 214

 
161 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever unfrozen.  BANA denies that it credited 
Rodriguez Romo’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $1,003 in April 2021, but 
avers that it credited Rodriguez Romo’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $1,000 
in April 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny 
the remaining allegations in Paragraph 479, and therefore denies them. 
480. BANA denies that Royston began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $1,400 took place on Royston’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in September 2020, but denies that these transactions on her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA 
denies that Royston contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in September 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about 
what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her in response.  
BANA denies that Royston’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in 
October 2020, but avers that Royston’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen 
on September 29, 2020.  BANA denies that Royston’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was not unfrozen after the September 29, 2020 freeze.  BANA denies that 
it credited Royston’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for approximately $1,400 in 
September 2020, and therefore also denies that it ever reversed the alleged September 
2020 credit.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 480, and therefore denies them. 
481. BANA denies that Salaz began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in June 2020.  BANA admits that 
transactions totaling at least $11,000 took place on Salaz’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in the 60 days prior to August 2020, but denies that these transactions on 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in the 60 days prior to August 2020 were 
unauthorized.  BANA denies that Salaz contacted BANA to report allegedly 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4075     Page
161 of 214

 
162 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in August 2020, 
but avers that Salaz contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in July 2020.  BANA admits that when Salaz contacted BANA 
to report the allegedly unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative authenticated Salaz 
as the caller and accessed and reviewed certain information relating to Salaz’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that, in response to Salaz’s alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim, BANA “refused” to provide Salaz with information 
or documentation.  BANA denies that it never credited Salaz’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account.  BANA denies that it failed to provide any additional notification, in 
writing or otherwise, as to how it reached its conclusion in investigating Salaz’s 
alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA admits that Salaz’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account was frozen in September.  BANA admits that Salaz contacted 
BANA to inquire about the status of her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
September 2020.  BANA denies that, in response, a BANA prepaid debit card call 
center representative failed to provide information over the telephone, and denies that 
BANA has never provided any additional information as to why a freeze was placed 
on Salaz’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 481, 
and therefore denies them. 
482. BANA denies that Salazar began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA 
denies that transactions totaling at least $4,000 took place on Salazar’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in December 2020, and denies that Salazar experienced fraud or 
unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies 
that Salazar contacted BANA or reported alleged fraud in December 2020, and 
therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4076     Page
162 of 214

 
163 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
representative told him in response.  BANA denies that Salazar’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was frozen in December 2020, and therefore denies that Salazar’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account has not been unfrozen since December 2020.  BANA 
denies that it credited Salazar’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $5,000 in April 
2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 482, and therefore denies them. 
483. BANA denies that Saldate began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in June 2020.  BANA 
denies that Saldate’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen or blocked in 
November 2020, and therefore denies that a freeze or block prevented Saldate from 
accessing his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020.  BANA denies 
that Saldate contacted BANA to inquire about the status of his EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in November 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a 
BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told him in response.  BANA 
denies that there was a freeze or block on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
November 2020, therefore BANA admits that Saldate did not receive information 
over the telephone or any additional information as to why a freeze or block was 
placed on Saldate’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020.  BANA 
denies that Saldate contacted BANA “more than 30 times” to inquire about the status 
of his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and denies that he was forced to be on hold 
for approximately 1-2 hours at a time.  BANA denies that any freeze or block was 
ever placed on Saldate’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and therefore BANA did 
not provide him with information or documentation concerning any alleged freeze or 
block because there was none.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient 
to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 483, and therefore denies 
them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4077     Page
163 of 214

 
164 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
484. BANA denies that Schmidt began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in February 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $400 took place on Schimdt’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in October 2020, but denies that these transactions on his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in October 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies that 
Schmidt contacted BANA to report fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
in October 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid 
debit card call center representative told him in response.  BANA denies that Schmidt 
ever filed an alleged unauthorized transaction or error claim with BANA concerning 
any alleged fraudulent activity on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA 
denies that, in October 2020, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
told Schmidt that they would issue him a replacement EDD Prepaid Debit Card.  
BANA denies that it credited Schmidt’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account $1,000 in 
April 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 484, and therefore denies them. 
485. BANA denies that Schmitz began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in May 2020.  BANA 
admits that BANA blocked Schmitz’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 
2021, and avers that BANA only blocked and unblocked Schmitz’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account on March 8, 2021.  BANA admits that Schmitz contacted BANA 
to inquire about the status of his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account and to request 
additional information regarding the block in March 2021.  BANA denies that it 
failed to provide Schmitz information over the phone or additional information as to 
why his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was blocked.  BANA lacks knowledge 
and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 
485, and therefore denies them. 
486. [Removed] 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4078     Page
164 of 214

 
165 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
487. [Removed] 
488. BANA admits that Silva began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in April 2020.  BANA admits that 
there was a block placed on Silva’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on March 22, 
2021.  BANA admits that Silva contacted BANA to inquire about the status of her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on March 22, 2021.  BANA denies that a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative failed to provide information over the 
telephone or any additional information as to why a block was placed on Silva’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account, and avers that Silva’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
was unblocked the next day, on March 23, 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 488, 
and therefore denies them. 
489. [Removed] 
490. BANA denies that Sims began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in February 2020.  BANA admits 
that transactions totaling at least $2,000 took place on Sims’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account between August and September 2020, but denies that these 
transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account between August and September 
2020 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Sims contacted BANA to report alleged 
fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020.  BANA denies 
that, in response to Sim’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim, BANA prepaid 
debit card call center representatives “refused” to give him an answer and “more 
often than not” dropped his calls.  BANA denies  Sims’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was ever frozen, and therefore also denies his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was ever unfrozen.  BANA denies that it has not credited Sims’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account since September 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4079     Page
165 of 214

 
166 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 490, 
and therefore denies them. 
491. [Removed] 
492. [Removed] 
493. [Removed] 
494. [Removed] 
495. [Removed] 
496. BANA denies that Stidham began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $19,000 took place on Stidham’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in October 2020, but denies that these transactions on 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in October 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA 
denies that Stidham contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in October 2020, but avers that Stidham contacted BANA to 
report alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in September 2020.  
BANA denies that, in response to Stidham’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim, 
a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her to “resolve her issue 
with EDD.”  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 496, and therefore denies them. 
497. BANA denies that Talia began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in June 2020.  BANA admits that 
Talia’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a balance of approximately $11,000 in 
August 2020.  BANA admits that Talia’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
frozen in September 2020 at the instruction of the EDD, but denies that Talia’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen without explanation or notice.  BANA denies 
that Talia contacted BANA to inquire about the status of his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in September 2020, but avers that he contacted BANA to inquire about the 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4080     Page
166 of 214

 
167 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
status of his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in October 2020.  BANA denies that, 
in response to Talia’s inquiry, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
failed to provide information over the telephone or any additional information as to 
why a freeze was placed on Talia’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies 
that Talia contacted BANA “hundreds of times” requesting information about the 
freeze on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that, in response to 
Talia’s inquiry, BANA prepaid debit card call center representatives only responses 
were for him to “call EDD.”  BANA denies that it has not unfrozen his EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account since April 2021.  BANA admits that it has not credited Talia’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for an alleged unauthorized transaction claim or 
related fees because such a claim was never made, but denies that Talia’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account has not received credits or deposits since April 2021.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 497, and therefore denies them. 
498. BANA denies that Tamayo began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in December 2019.  
BANA admits that transactions totaling at least $160 took place on Tamayo’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020, but denies that these transactions on 
his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA 
admits that Tamayo contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in December 2020.  BANA denies that, in response to his alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim, BANA prepaid debit card call center representatives 
would transfer him between departments and eventually dropped his call.  BANA 
admits that Tamayo’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in December 
2020.  BANA denies that Tamayo’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen 
in January 2021, but avers that Tamayo’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
unfrozen in March 2021 and then blocked until April 5, 2021.  BANA denies that it 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4081     Page
167 of 214

 
168 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
credited Tamayo’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $1,800 in January 2021.  
BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 498, and therefore denies them. 
499. BANA admits that M. Taylor began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in February 2021.  BANA 
admits that an ATM withdrawal for $1,000 took place on M. Taylor’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in February 2021, but denies that this ATM withdrawal on her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in February 2021 was unauthorized.  BANA 
admits that M. Taylor contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in February 2021.  BANA denies that, in response to her alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
told her to “resolve her issue with EDD.”  BANA admits that M. Taylor’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in February 2021.  The allegations regarding 
the legality of the alleged freezes on M. Taylor’s EDD Prepaid Debit Account state 
legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
required, BANA denies them.  BANA denies that M. Taylor’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account was unfrozen in May 2021, but avers that M. Taylor’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account was unfrozen in April 2021.  BANA admits that it credited M. 
Taylor’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $1,000 in June 2021.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 499, and therefore denies them. 
500. BANA denies that T. Taylor began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in August 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $500 took place on T. Taylor’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in December 2020, but denies that these transactions on her EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA admits 
that T. Taylor contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4082     Page
168 of 214

 
169 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
Card Account in December 2020.  BANA denies that, in response to her alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
told her to “contact EDD to resolve her issue.”  BANA admits that T. Taylor’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in December 2020.  BANA denies that it 
unfroze T. Taylor’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in May 2021, but avers that 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was unfrozen in February 2021.  BANA denies 
that it has not credited T. Taylor’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account since December 
2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 500, and therefore denies them. 
501. BANA denies that Tonna began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA denies that 
transactions totaling approximately $25,000 took place on Tonna’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account between March and October 2020.  BANA denies that Tonna 
contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
October 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit 
card call center representative told him in response.  BANA admits that Tonna’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in December 2020.  The allegations 
regarding the legality of the alleged freeze on Tonna’s EDD Prepaid Debit Account 
state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
required, BANA denies them.  BANA denies that it unfroze Tonna’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in April 2021, but avers that it unfroze his EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in March 2021.  BANA denies that is has not credited Tonna’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account since October 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and 
information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 501, 
and therefore denies them. 
502. BANA admits that Trammel began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in April 2020.  BANA 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4083     Page
169 of 214

 
170 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
admits that transactions totaling approximately $825 took place on Trammel’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 2021, but denies that these transactions on her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 2021 were unauthorized.  BANA admits 
that Trammel contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account on March 8, 2021. BANA denies that, in response to her alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
told her to “call back in a few days to apply for provisional credit.”  BANA admits 
that Trammel’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in March 2021 and 
avers that it was unfrozen that same month.  BANA denies that it unfroze Trammel’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in May 2021 because her EDD Prepaid Account 
was not frozen in May 2021.  BANA admits that it credited Trammel’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in May 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 502, and therefore 
denies them. 
503. [Removed] 
504. [Removed] 
505. BANA admits that Turner began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2021.  BANA 
denies that Turner’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen or blocked in 
March 2021, and therefore denies that a freeze or block prevented Turner from 
accessing his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 2021.  BANA denies that 
Turner contacted BANA to inquire about the status of his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in March 2021, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative told him in response.  BANA admits that 
Turner did not receive information over the telephone or any additional information 
as to why a freeze or block was placed on Turner’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
in March 2021 because there was not a freeze or block on Turner’s EDD Prepaid 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4084     Page
170 of 214

 
171 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
Debit Card Account in March 2021 for Turner to contact BANA regarding.  BANA 
lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 505, and therefore denies them. 
506. BANA admits that Valadez received EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card.  BANA admits that transactions 
took place on Valadez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in the 60 days prior to 
August 2020, but denies that these transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in the 60 days prior to August 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies that 
Valadez contacted BANA in August 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about 
what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her in response.  
BANA admits that it never credited Valadez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for 
the alleged transactions that took place on Valadez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in the 60 days prior to August 2020, but avers that Valadez did not contact 
BANA to report those allegedly unauthorized transactions.  BANA admits that 
Valadez did not receive any additional notification, in writing or otherwise, as to how 
it reached its conclusion after conducting a reasonable investigation or what 
documents it relied upon because Valadez did not contact BANA to make an alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim in August 2020.  BANA admits that transactions took 
place on Valadez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in the 60 days prior to 
November 2020, but denies that these transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in the 60 days prior to November 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies 
that Valadez contacted BANA to report the allegedly unauthorized transactions on 
her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in November 2020, and therefore denies the 
allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told her 
in response.  BANA admits that it never credited Valadez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account for the transactions that took place on Valadez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in the 60 days prior to November 2020, but avers that Valadez did not 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4085     Page
171 of 214

 
172 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
contact BANA to report those allegedly unauthorized transactions.  BANA admits 
Valadez did not receive any additional notification, in writing or otherwise, as to how 
it reached its conclusion after conducting a reasonable investigation or what 
documents it relied upon because Valadez did not contact BANA to make an alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim in November 2020.  BANA denies that there was a 
freeze or block on Valadez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021, and 
therefore denies that a freeze or block prevented Valadez from accessing her EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021.  BANA denies that Valadez contacted 
BANA to inquire about the status of her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 
2021, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call 
center representative told her in response.  BANA admits that Valadez did not receive 
information over the telephone or any additional information as to why a freeze or 
block was placed on Valadez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in January 2021 
because there was not a freeze or block on Valadez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in January 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 506, and therefore denies them. 
507. BANA denies that Valenzuela began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in October 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions took place on Valenzuela’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in October 2020, but denies that these transactions on his EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in October 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA denies that 
Valenzuela contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in October 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative told him in response.  BANA denies that 
Valenzuela’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever frozen, and therefore also 
denies his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever unfrozen.  BANA admits that 
is has not temporarily credited Valenzuela’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account since 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4086     Page
172 of 214

 
173 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
October 2020, but avers that Valenzuela did not contact BANA to report the fraud 
alleged in Paragraph 507.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 507, and therefore denies them. 
508. BANA denies that Vasquez began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in April 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions for at least $886 took place on Vasquez’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in late November or early December 2020, but denies that these 
transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in late November or early 
December 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Vasquez contacted BANA 
to report alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020.  
BANA denies that, in response to his alleged unauthorized transaction claim, a 
BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told Vasquez that they would 
“freeze” his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account and that he needed to go into a branch 
to “verify his identification” to “call back in a few days to apply for provisional 
credit.”  BANA denies that Vasquez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen 
in December 2020.  BANA denies that it unfroze Vasquez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in January 2021.  BANA denies that it credited Vasquez’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account for $357 in January 2021, but avers that it credited Vasquez’s 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $311.65 on December 16, 2020.  BANA admits 
that the EDD stopped instructing BANA to deposit EDD unemployment benefits into 
Vasquez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and avers that Vasquez’s was 
disqualified from EDD unemployment benefits by the EDD, which caused BANA to 
freeze Vasquez’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on May 26, 2022 based on 
information from EDD that Vasquez was not eligible for the benefits deposited into 
his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 508, and therefore 
denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4087     Page
173 of 214

 
174 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
509. BANA admits that Verdun received EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in 2020.  BANA denies that 
Verdun contacted BANA to report alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account on June 6, 2020, but avers that Verdun contacted BANA to report alleged 
fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on June 7, 2020.  BANA denies that, 
in response to his alleged unauthorized transaction claim, a BANA prepaid debit card 
call center representative told Verdun that $4,100 was “missing” from his EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA admits that Verdun’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account call notes reflect that a caller contacted BANA, identified and authenticated 
themselves as Verdun, and requested a transfer of funds from Verdun’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account prior to Verdun’s June 7, 2020 call.  BANA admits that, on the 
June 7, 2020 call, Verdun informed the BANA prepaid debit card call center 
representative that he did not request the funds transfer referenced in Paragraph 509.  
BANA admits that on the same day as the fund transfer request, a caller contacted 
BANA regarding Verdun’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account but was unable to 
provide certain information about the EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in order to 
authenticate.  BANA admits the caller who successfully requested the funds transfer 
was able to authenticate prior to making the request.  BANA denies that, on the June 
7, 2020 call, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told Verdun that 
they “would only freeze the account” and that they could not “process any type of 
fraud claim.”  BANA admits that, on a June 7, 2020 call, a BANA prepaid debit card 
call center representative told Verdun to contact the prepaid debit card claims 
department to file an alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA admits that 
Verdun contacted BANA multiple times on June 8, 2020, and that during one of those 
calls, Verdun reported to a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative that 
he was on hold for hours.  BANA denies that all BANA would do was “close his 
Account and open a new one.”  BANA admits that on June 8, 2020, a prepaid call 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4088     Page
174 of 214

 
175 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
center representative assisted Verdun by ordering a replacement card and told him 
that he needed to contact the prepaid debit card claims department to file an 
unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA admits it has not otherwise contacted Verdun 
about the alleged fraud or requested any additional information on the alleged fraud 
because Verdun did not file an alleged unauthorized transaction claim in June 2020.  
BANA denies that BANA ever received from Verdun a police report or a completed 
FTC fraud affidavit.  BANA admits that it has not credited Verdun’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account in relation to the alleged unauthorized transactions referenced in 
Paragraph 509.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny 
the remaining allegations in Paragraph 509, and therefore denies them. 
510. [Removed] 
511. BANA denies that Viramontes began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions took place totaling at least $2,900 on Viramontes’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in May and September 2020, but denies that these 
transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in May and September 2020 
were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Viramontes contacted BANA to report 
alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in May 2020.  BANA denies 
that, in response to Viramontes’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim, a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative told him that BANA “experienced 
technical issues” regarding his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that 
Viramontes’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever frozen, and therefore also 
denies his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was ever unfrozen.  BANA denies that 
it credited Viramontes’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for $2,300 in February 
2021, but avers that it credited Viramontes’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account for 
$1,860 in February 2021.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to 
admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 511, and therefore denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4089     Page
175 of 214

 
176 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
512. BANA denies that Walker began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in November 2020.  
BANA denies that Walker received EDD unemployment benefits for $1,080 every 
two weeks.  BANA denies that Walker’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
frozen or blocked in January 2021, but avers that Walker’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account was frozen in December 2020.  BANA admits that Walker contacted BANA 
to inquire about the status of his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 
2020.  BANA denies that a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative failed 
to provide information over the telephone or any additional information as to why a 
freeze was placed on Walker’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies 
that it unfroze Walker’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in April 2021, but avers 
that it unfroze Walker’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in March 2021.  BANA 
denies that BANA never provided Walker with a notice regarding the freeze or other 
additional information as to why a freeze was placed on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account.  BANA admits that transactions took place totaling at least $9,736 on 
Walker’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in the 60 days prior to May 2021, but 
denies that these transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in the 60 days 
prior to May 2021 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Walker contacted BANA 
to report alleged fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in May 2021.  BANA 
denies that, in response to Walker’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim, BANA 
“refused to provide” Walker with information and documentation.  BANA denies 
that it did not credit Walker’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in relation to this 
alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA denies that it failed to provide any 
additional notification, in writing or otherwise, as to how it reached its conclusion in 
investigating Walker’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 512, and therefore denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4090     Page
176 of 214

 
177 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
513. [Removed] 
514. [Removed] 
515. BANA denies that Wilds began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA admits 
that a transaction totaling $200 took place on Wilds’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account on March 9, 2021, but denies that this transaction on her EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account on March 9, 2021 unauthorized.  BANA denies that Wilds contacted 
BANA to report alleged fraud on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on March 
11, 2021, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card 
call center representative told her in response.  BANA admits that Wilds’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen in March 2021.  The allegations regarding 
the legality of the alleged freeze on Wilds’s EDD Prepaid Debit Account state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them.  BANA denies that it unfroze Wilds’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account on April 15, 2021, but avers that it unfroze Wilds’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account on March 29, 2021.  BANA admits that it credited Wilds’s EDD Prepaid 
Debit Card Account for $200 on April 27, 2021.  BANA denies that Wilds’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account was frozen on May 25, 2021.  BANA denies that it 
unfroze Wilds’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account on May 31, 2021.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 515, and therefore denies them. 
516. [Removed] 
517. [Removed] 
518. BANA admits that T. Williams received EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card.  BANA admits that transactions 
took place on T. Williams’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in the 60 days prior 
to July 2020, but denies that these transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4091     Page
177 of 214

 
178 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 in the 60 days prior to July 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that T. 
Williams contacted BANA to report allegedly unauthorized transactions on her EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in July 2020.  BANA admits that when T. Williams 
contacted BANA to report the allegedly unauthorized transactions on her EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative 
authenticated T. Williams as the caller and accessed and reviewed certain 
information relating to T. Williams’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA 
denies that it never credited T. Williams’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
relation to this alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  BANA denies that it failed to 
provide any additional notification, in writing or otherwise, as to how it reached its 
conclusion in investigating T. Williams’s alleged unauthorized transaction claim.  
BANA admits that transactions continued to take place on T. Williams’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account after July 2020, but denies that these transactions on her 
EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account after to July 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA 
admits that T. Williams’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account had a balance of $0 
between July 2020 and August 2023.  BANA denies that T. Williams contacted 
BANA to report allegedly unauthorized transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account after July 2020, and therefore denies the allegations about what a BANA 
prepaid debit card call center representative told her in response.  BANA lacks 
knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 
Paragraph 518, and therefore denies them. 
519. BANA admits that W. Williams began receiving EDD unemployment 
benefits through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in April 2020.  BANA 
admits that transactions totaling at least $10,000 took place on W. Williams’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account in July and August 2020, but denies that these 
transactions on her EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in July and August 2020 were 
unauthorized.  BANA denies that W. Williams contacted BANA in August 2020 and 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4092     Page
178 of 214

 
179 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
reported fraud on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account, and therefore denies the 
allegations about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told him 
in response.  BANA denies that W. Williams’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account 
was ever frozen, and therefore also denies his EDD Prepaid Debit Card was ever 
unfrozen.  BANA denies that it has not credited W. Williams’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account since August 2020.  BANA lacks knowledge and information 
sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 519, and therefore 
denies them. 
520. [Removed] 
521. [Removed] 
522. [Removed] 
523. BANA admits that Wood began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in April 2020.  BANA denies that 
there was a freeze or block on Wood’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in 
December 2020, and therefore denies that a freeze or block prevented Wood from 
accessing his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in December 2020.  BANA denies 
that Wood contacted BANA in December 2020, and therefore denies the allegations 
about what a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative told him in 
response.  BANA admits that Wood did not receive information over the telephone 
or any additional information as to why a freeze or block was placed on Wood’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account because Wood’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account was 
never blocked or frozen.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit 
or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 523, and therefore denies them. 
524. BANA admits that Yeats began receiving EDD unemployment benefits 
through a BANA-issued EDD Prepaid Debit Card in March 2020.  BANA denies that 
Yeats received EDD unemployment benefits for $1,060 every two weeks.  BANA 
admits that three ATM withdrawals totaling approximately $2,780 took place on 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4093     Page
179 of 214

 
180 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
Yeats’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in the 60 days prior to December 2020, 
but denies that these transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in the 60 
days prior to December 2020 were unauthorized.  BANA admits that Yeats contacted 
BANA to report allegedly unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account in December 2020.  BANA admits that when Yeats contacted BANA to 
report the allegedly unauthorized transactions on his EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account, a BANA prepaid debit card call center representative authenticated Yeats 
as the caller and accessed and reviewed certain information relating to Yeats’s EDD 
Prepaid Debit Card Account.  BANA denies that, in response to Yeats’s alleged 
unauthorized transaction claim, it did not send him relevant information and 
documentation.  BANA denies that it “refused” to credit Yeats’s EDD Prepaid Debit 
Card Account in relation to this allegedly unauthorized transaction.  BANA denies 
that it never credited Yeats’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card Account in relation to the 
alleged unauthorized transaction claim referenced in Paragraph 524.  BANA denies 
that it failed to provide any additional notification, in writing or otherwise, as to how 
it reached its conclusion in investigating Yeats’s alleged unauthorized transaction 
claim.  BANA denies that it never credited Yeats’s EDD Prepaid Debit Card 
Account.  BANA lacks knowledge and information sufficient to admit or deny the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 524, and therefore denies them. 
525. [Removed] 
526. [Removed] 
V. 
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 
527. Paragraph 527 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Class Representative 
Plaintiffs purport to bring causes of action on behalf of a class.  BANA denies that 
class treatment is appropriate in this action, denies any liability with respect to the 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4094     Page
180 of 214

 
181 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
alleged putative classes, and denies that the alleged putative classes are ascertainable 
or entitled to damages or any other relief. 
528. Paragraph 528 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Class Representative 
Plaintiffs purport to bring causes of action on behalf of Subclasses.  BANA denies 
that class treatment is appropriate in this action, denies any liability with respect to 
the alleged putative subclasses, and denies that the alleged putative subclasses are 
ascertainable or entitled to damages or any other relief. 
529. Paragraph 529 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
530. Paragraph 530 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
531. Paragraph 531 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
532. Paragraph 532 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
VI. 
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
VIOLATIONS OF THE ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS ACT (“EFTA”) 
15 U.S.C. §§ 1693 et seq.; 12 C.F.R. §§ 1005.1 et seq. 
(Brought by All Plaintiffs) 
533. BANA re-alleges and incorporates its responses to all factual allegations 
set forth in the SAMCC.  To the extent that Paragraph 533 asserts a cause of action 
by those Plaintiffs whose Count I causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its 
May 25, 2023 Order, see generally ECF No. 126, BANA denies the allegations set 
forth in Paragraph 533. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4095     Page
181 of 214

 
182 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
534. Paragraph 534 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Plaintiffs purport to 
bring a cause of action pursuant to EFTA and Regulation E.  BANA denies any 
liability thereunder.  To the extent that Paragraph 534 asserts a cause of action by 
those Plaintiffs whose Count I causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its 
May 25, 2023 Order, see generally ECF No. 126, BANA denies the allegations set 
forth in Paragraph 534. 
535. Paragraph 535 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA re-alleges and incorporates its responses 
to Paragraphs 9 through 33 and 114 through 526.  To the extent that Paragraph 535 
asserts a cause of action by those Plaintiffs whose Count I causes of action were 
dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 Order, see generally ECF No. 126, BANA 
denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 535. 
536. Paragraph 536 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 536 asserts a cause of action by those Plaintiffs whose Count I causes of 
action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 Order, see generally ECF 
No. 126, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 536. 
537. Paragraph 537 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 537 asserts a cause of action by those Plaintiffs whose Count I causes of 
action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 Order, see generally ECF 
No. 126, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 537. 
538. Paragraph 538 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 538 asserts a cause of action by those Plaintiffs whose Count I causes of 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4096     Page
182 of 214

 
183 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 Order, see generally ECF 
No. 126, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 538. 
539. Paragraph 539 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 539 asserts a cause of action by those Plaintiffs whose Count I causes of 
action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 Order, see generally ECF 
No. 126, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 539. 
540. Paragraph 540 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA re-alleges and incorporates its responses 
to Paragraphs 9 through 33 and 114 through 526.  To the extent that Paragraph 540 
asserts a cause of action by those Plaintiffs whose Count I causes of action were 
dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 Order, see generally ECF No. 126, BANA 
denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 540. 
541. Paragraph 541 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 541 asserts a cause of action by those Plaintiffs whose Count I causes of 
action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 Order, see generally ECF 
No. 126, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 541. 
542. As to the allegations in Paragraph 542 regarding constructive notice, 
those allegations state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the 
extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that Paragraph 542 
asserts a cause of action by those Plaintiffs whose Count I causes of action were 
dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 Order, see generally ECF No. 126, BANA 
denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 542.  BANA denies the remaining 
allegations in Paragraph 542. 
543. Paragraph 543 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4097     Page
183 of 214

 
184 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
Paragraph 543 asserts a cause of action by those Plaintiffs whose Count I causes of 
action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 Order, see generally ECF 
No. 126, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 543. 
544. Paragraph 544 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 544 asserts a cause of action by those Plaintiffs whose Count I causes of 
action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 Order, see generally ECF 
No. 126, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 544. 
545. Paragraph 545 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Class Representative 
Plaintiffs purport to seek relief on behalf of a class.  BANA denies that class treatment 
is appropriate in this action, denies any liability with respect to Plaintiffs and the 
alleged putative classes, and denies that Plaintiffs and alleged putative classes are 
ascertainable or entitled to damages or any other relief.  To the extent that Paragraph 
545 asserts a cause of action by those Plaintiffs whose Count I causes of action were 
dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 Order, see generally ECF No. 126, BANA 
denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 545. 
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRIVACY ACT 
(“CCPA”) 
Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.100 et seq. 
(Brought by Class Representative Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs in the Abarr, 
Alvarez, Brotman, Meza, Morrell, Payton, Rojas de Charolet, Talia, and Verdun 
Actions) 
546. BANA re-alleges and incorporates its responses to all factual allegations 
set forth in the SAMCC. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4098     Page
184 of 214

 
185 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
547. Paragraph 547 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Plaintiffs purport to 
bring a cause of action pursuant to CCPA.  BANA denies any liability thereunder.  
To the extent that Paragraph 547 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that 
BANA failed to collect, transmit, and/or store Plaintiffs’ personal information in an 
adequately secure manner, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 547 
because those Count II causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 
2023 and June 25, 2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
548. Paragraph 548 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 548 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA failed to 
collect, transmit, and/or store Plaintiffs’ personal information in an adequately secure 
manner, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 548 because those Count 
II causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 
2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
549. Paragraph 549 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits that it is a “business” as defined 
by the CCPA.  To the extent that Paragraph 549 asserts a cause of action based on 
allegations that BANA failed to collect, transmit, and/or store Plaintiffs’ personal 
information in an adequately secure manner, BANA denies the allegations set forth 
in Paragraph 547 because those Count II causes of action were dismissed by the Court 
in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293.  
To the extent a response is required to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 549, 
BANA denies them. 
550. Paragraph 550 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 550 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA failed to 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4099     Page
185 of 214

 
186 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
collect, transmit, and/or store Plaintiffs’ personal information in an adequately secure 
manner, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 550 because those Count 
II causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 
2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
551. Paragraph 551 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 551 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA failed to 
collect, transmit, and/or store Plaintiffs’ personal information in an adequately secure 
manner, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 551 because those Count 
II causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 
2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
552. Paragraph 552 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 552 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA failed to 
collect, transmit, and/or store Plaintiffs’ personal information in an adequately secure 
manner, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 552 because those Count 
II causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 
2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
553. Paragraph 553 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
554. Paragraph 554 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 554 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA failed to 
collect, transmit, and/or store Plaintiffs’ personal information in an adequately secure 
manner, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 554 because those Count 
II causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 
2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4100     Page
186 of 214

 
187 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
555. Paragraph 555 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
556. Paragraph 556 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 556 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA failed to 
collect, transmit, and/or store Plaintiffs’ personal information in an adequately secure 
manner, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 556 because those Count 
II causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 
2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
557. Paragraph 557 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA re-alleges and incorporates its responses 
to Paragraphs 9 through 33 and 114 through 526.  To the extent that Paragraph 557 
asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA failed to collect, transmit, 
and/or store Plaintiffs’ personal information in an adequately secure manner, BANA 
denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 557 because those Count II causes of 
action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 2024 Orders.  
See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
558. Paragraph 558 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Class Representative 
Plaintiffs purport to seek relief on behalf of a class.  BANA denies that class treatment 
is appropriate in this action, denies any liability with respect to Plaintiffs and the 
alleged putative classes, and denies that Plaintiffs and alleged putative classes are 
ascertainable or entitled to damages or any other relief.  To the extent that Paragraph 
558 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA failed to collect, 
transmit, and/or store Plaintiffs’ personal information in an adequately secure 
manner, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 558 because those Count 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4101     Page
187 of 214

 
188 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
II causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 
2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
559. To the extent that Paragraph 559 asserts a cause of action based on 
allegations that BANA failed to collect, transmit, and/or store Plaintiffs’ personal 
information in adequately secure manner, BANA denies the allegations set forth in 
Paragraph 559 because those Count II causes of action were dismissed by the Court 
in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
560. To the extent that Paragraph 560 asserts a cause of action based on 
allegations that BANA failed to collect, transmit, and/or store Plaintiffs’ personal 
information in adequately secure manner, BANA denies the allegations set forth in 
Paragraph 560 because those Count II causes of action were dismissed by the Court 
in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
561. Paragraph 561 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Class Representative 
Plaintiffs purport to seek relief on behalf of a class.  BANA denies that class treatment 
is appropriate in this action, denies any liability with respect to Plaintiffs and the 
alleged putative classes, and denies that Plaintiffs and alleged putative classes are 
ascertainable or entitled to damages or any other relief.  To the extent that Paragraph 
561 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA failed to collect, 
transmit, and/or store Plaintiffs’ personal information in an adequately secure 
manner, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 561 because those Count 
II causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 
2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CUSTOMER RECORDS ACT 
Cal. Civ. Code §§1798.80 et seq. 
562. [Removed] 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4102     Page
188 of 214

 
189 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
563. [Removed] 
564. [Removed] 
565. [Removed] 
566. [Removed] 
567. [Removed] 
568. [Removed] 
569. [Removed] 
570. [Removed] 
571. [Removed] 
572. [Removed] 
573. [Removed] 
574. [Removed] 
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200 et seq. 
(Brought by Class Representative Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs in the Abarr, 
Alvarez, Brotman, Meza, Morrell, Payton, Rojas de Charolet, Talia, and Verdun 
Actions) 
575. BANA re-alleges and incorporates its responses to all factual allegations 
set forth in the SAMCC. 
576. Paragraph 576 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Plaintiffs purport to 
bring a cause of action pursuant to California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”).  
BANA denies any liability thereunder. 
577. Paragraph 577 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Plaintiffs purport to 
bring a cause of action pursuant to the UCL, EFTA and Regulation E, the CCPA, the 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4103     Page
189 of 214

 
190 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
Due Process Clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions, and common law.  
BANA denies any liability thereunder.  To the extent that Paragraph 577 asserts a 
cause of action based on BANA’s alleged violations of the California Financial 
Information Privacy Act (“CFIPA”), BANA denies the allegations set forth in 
Paragraph 577 because causes of action based on the CFIPA were dismissed by the 
Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 2024 Orders.  See ECF Nos. 126 at 43, 297 
at 9. 
578. Paragraph 578 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits that it is a “financial institution” 
as defined under 15 U.S.C. §6809(3)(A).  To the extent a response is required to the 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 578, BANA denies them. 
579. Paragraph 579 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
580. Paragraph 580 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that it is a “financial 
institution” as defined under Cal. Fin. Code §4052(c).  BANA denies the remaining 
allegations set forth in Paragraph 580 because causes of action based on the CFIPA 
were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 2024 Orders.  See ECF 
Nos. 126 at 43, 297 at 9. 
581. Paragraph 581 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent that Paragraph 581 asserts a cause of action based on BANA’s alleged 
violations of the CFIPA and the California Customer Records Act (“CCRA”), BANA 
denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 581 because those causes of action were 
dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 2024 Orders.  See generally 
ECF Nos. 126, 297.  To the extent that Paragraph 581 asserts a cause of action based 
on allegations that BANA failed to collect, transmit, and/or store Plaintiffs’ personal 
information in an adequately secure manner, BANA denies the allegations set forth 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4104     Page
190 of 214

 
191 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
in Paragraph 581 because allegations based on those causes of action were dismissed 
by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 
126, 293.To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
582. Paragraph 582 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
583. Paragraph 583 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
584. Paragraph 584 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Class Representative 
Plaintiffs purport to seek relief on behalf of a class.  BANA denies that class treatment 
is appropriate in this action, denies any liability with respect to Plaintiffs and the 
alleged putative classes, and denies that Plaintiffs and alleged putative classes are 
ascertainable or entitled to damages or any other relief.  . 
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENCE PER SE 
(Brought by Class Representative Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs in the Abarr, 
Alvarez, Brotman, Meza, Morrell, Payton, Rojas de Charolet, Talia, and Verdun 
Actions) 
585. BANA re-alleges and incorporates its responses to all factual allegations 
set forth in the SAMCC. 
586. Paragraph 586 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 586 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA violated the 
CFIPA the CCRA, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 586 because 
those causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 
2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4105     Page
191 of 214

 
192 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
587. Paragraph 587 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 587 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA violated the 
CFIPA and CCRA, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 587 because 
those Count V causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and 
June 25, 2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
588. Paragraph 588 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 588 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA violated the 
CFIPA and CCRA, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 588 because 
those Count V causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and 
June 25, 2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
589. Paragraph 589 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
590. Paragraph 590 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 589 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA violated the 
CFIPA and CCRA, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 589 because 
those Count V causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and 
June 25, 2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
591. Paragraph 591 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 591 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA violated the 
CFIPA and CCRA, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 591 because 
those Count V causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and 
June 25, 2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4106     Page
192 of 214

 
193 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
592. Paragraph 592 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  As to the allegations in 
Paragraph 592 regarding unnamed putative class members, BANA lacks information 
and knowledge sufficient to admit or deny them, and therefore denies them.  To the 
extent that Paragraph 592 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA 
violated the CFIPA and CCRA, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 
592 because those Count V causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 
25, 2023 and June 25, 2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
593. Paragraph 593 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Class Representative 
Plaintiffs purport to seek relief on behalf of a class.  BANA denies that class treatment 
is appropriate in this action, denies any liability with respect to Plaintiffs and the 
alleged putative classes, and denies that Plaintiffs and alleged putative classes are 
ascertainable or entitled to damages or any other relief.  To the extent that Paragraph 
593 asserts a cause of action or purports to seek relief based on allegations that 
BANA violated the CFIPA and CCRA, BANA denies the allegations set forth in 
Paragraph 592 because those Count V causes of action were dismissed by the Court 
in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, AND RETENTION 
(Brought by Class Representative Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs in the Abarr, 
Alvarez, Rojas de Charolet, and Verdun Actions) 
594. BANA re-alleges and incorporates its responses to all factual allegations 
set forth in the SAMCC. 
595. BANA admits that it hired subcontractors, including TTEC Holdings, 
Inc. (“TTEC”) “to provide customer service, call center operations, and other 
services for [BANA] and to perform various functions and services under” BANA’s 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4107     Page
193 of 214

 
194 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
contract with EDD as stated in Paragraph 595.  As to the allegations in Paragraph 
595 regarding unnamed subcontractors and their employees and agents, and unnamed 
putative class members, BANA lacks information and knowledge sufficient to admit 
or deny them, and therefore denies them.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 595 
state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
required, BANA denies them. 
596. As to the allegations in Paragraph 596 regarding unnamed agents and 
employees, BANA lacks information and knowledge sufficient to admit or deny 
them, and therefore denies them.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 596 state 
legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is 
required, BANA denies them. 
597. As to the allegations in Paragraph 597 regarding unnamed agents and 
employees, and unnamed putative class members, BANA lacks information and 
knowledge sufficient to admit or deny them, and therefore denies them.  All 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 597 states legal conclusions to which no response 
is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
598. As to the allegations in Paragraph 598 regarding unnamed agents and 
employees, and unnamed putative class members, BANA lacks information and 
knowledge sufficient to admit or deny them, and therefore denies them.  All 
remaining allegations in Paragraph 598 states legal conclusions to which no response 
is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
599. BANA states that its contract with EDD referenced in Paragraph 599 
speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content and denies any characterization 
inconsistent with the text of BANA’s contract with EDD.  As to the allegations in 
Paragraph 599 regarding unnamed agents, BANA lacks information and knowledge 
sufficient to admit or deny them, and therefore denies them.  All remaining 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4108     Page
194 of 214

 
195 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
allegations in Paragraph 599 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
600. Paragraph 600 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
601. As to the allegations in Paragraph 601 regarding unnamed putative class 
members, BANA lacks information and knowledge sufficient to admit or deny them, 
and therefore denies them.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 601 states legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them. 
602. Paragraph 602 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Class Representative 
Plaintiffs purport to seek relief on behalf of a class.  BANA denies that class treatment 
is appropriate in this action, denies any liability with respect to Plaintiffs and the 
alleged putative classes, and denies that Plaintiffs and alleged putative classes are 
ascertainable or entitled to damages or any other relief. 
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
BREACH OF CONTRACT 
(Brought by Plaintiffs Stephanie Smith and Crystal Horath) 
603. BANA re-alleges and incorporates its responses to all factual allegations 
set forth in the SAMCC. 
604. BANA admits that it entered into a contract with EDD, and that BANA 
managed those Cards and the related Accounts pursuant to this contract.  BANA 
admits that EDD distributed benefits to Plaintiffs through a BANA-issued EDD Debit 
Card.  As to the allegations in Paragraph 604 that BANA administers EDD benefits 
or that EDD benefits can only be received through a prepaid debit card, BANA denies 
them.  To the extent that Paragraph 604 asserts a cause of action for breach of contract 
except for the Section 9 and 11 theories of Plaintiffs Stephanie Smith, Beth Burns 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4109     Page
195 of 214

 
196 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 Crystal Horath, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 604 because 
those Count VI causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and 
June 25, 2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293.  The remaining allegations 
in Paragraph 604 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the 
extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
605. BANA states the Cardholder Agreement speaks for itself and is the best 
evidence of its content and denies any characterization inconsistent with the text of 
the Cardholder Agreement.  To the extent that Paragraph 605 asserts a cause of action 
for breach of contract except for the Section 9 and 11 theories of Plaintiffs Stephanie 
Smith, Beth Burns and Crystal Horath, BANA denies the allegations set forth in 
Paragraph 605 because those Count VI causes of action were dismissed by the Court 
in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
606. BANA states that the Cardholder Agreement speaks for itself and is the 
best evidence of its content and denies any characterization inconsistent with the text 
of the Cardholder Agreement.  To the extent that Paragraph 606 asserts a cause of 
action for breach of contract except for the Section 9 and 11 theories of Plaintiffs 
Stephanie Smith, Beth Burns and Crystal Horath, BANA denies the allegations set 
forth in Paragraph 606 because those Count VI causes of action were dismissed by 
the Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 
126, 293. 
607. Paragraph 607 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 607 asserts a cause of action for breach of contract except for the Section 
9 and 11 theories of Plaintiffs Stephanie Smith, Beth Burns and Crystal Horath, 
BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 607 because those Count VI 
causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 2024 
Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4110     Page
196 of 214

 
197 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
608. Paragraph 608 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
609. Paragraph 609 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
610. Paragraph 610 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Plaintiffs seek relief on 
behalf of themselves and a purported class.  BANA denies that class treatment is 
appropriate in this action, denies any liability with respect to Plaintiffs and the alleged 
putative classes, and denies that Plaintiffs and alleged putative classes are 
ascertainable or entitled to damages or any other relief.  BANA further denies that 
class treatment is appropriate insomuch as Plaintiff Stephanie Smith no longer seeks 
to represent a class based on her counsel’s letter dated January 29, 2024.  To the 
extent that Paragraph 610 asserts a cause of action for breach of contract except for 
the Section 9 and 11 theories of Plaintiffs Stephanie Smith, Beth Burns and Crystal 
Horath, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 610 because those Count 
VI causes of action were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 and June 25, 
2024 Orders.  See generally ECF Nos. 126, 293. 
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT 
611. [Removed] 
612. [Removed] 
613. [Removed] 
614. [Removed] 
615. [Removed] 
616. [Removed] 
617. [Removed] 
618. [Removed] 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4111     Page
197 of 214

 
198 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR 
DEALING 
(Brought by Class Representative Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs in the Abarr, 
Alvarez, Brotman, Meza, Morrell, Payton, and Talia Actions) 
619. BANA re-alleges and incorporates its responses to all factual allegations 
set forth in the SAMCC.  To the extent that Paragraph 619 asserts a cause of action 
based on allegations that BANA breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair 
dealing by failing to provide debit cards with EMV chips or adequate customer 
service, BANA denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 619 because those Count 
IX allegations were dismissed by the Court in its May 25, 2023 Order.  See generally 
ECF No. 126. 
620. Paragraph 620 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 620 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA breached the 
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to provide debit cards with 
EMV chips or adequate customer service, BANA denies the allegations set forth in 
Paragraph 620 because those Count IX allegations were dismissed by the Court in its 
May 25, 2023 Order.  See generally ECF No. 126. 
621. Paragraph 621 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 621 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA breached the 
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to provide debit cards with 
EMV chips or adequate customer service, BANA denies the allegations set forth in 
Paragraph 621 because those Count IX allegations were dismissed by the Court in its 
May 25, 2023 Order.  See generally ECF No. 126. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4112     Page
198 of 214

 
199 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
622. Paragraph 622 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 622 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA breached the 
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to provide debit cards with 
EMV chips or adequate customer service, BANA denies the allegations set forth in 
Paragraph 622 because those Count IX allegations were dismissed by the Court in its 
May 25, 2023 Order.  See generally ECF No. 126. 
623. BANA denies the allegations in Paragraph 158.  To the extent that 
Paragraph 623 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA breached the 
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to provide debit cards with 
EMV chips or adequate customer service, BANA denies the allegations set forth in 
Paragraph 623 because those Count IX allegations were dismissed by the Court in its 
May 25, 2023 Order.  See generally ECF No. 126. 
624. Paragraph 624 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Class Representative 
Plaintiffs purport to seek relief on behalf of a class.  BANA denies that class treatment 
is appropriate in this action, denies any liability with respect to Plaintiffs and the 
alleged putative classes, and denies that Plaintiffs and alleged putative classes are 
ascertainable or entitled to damages or any other relief.  To the extent that Paragraph 
624 asserts a cause of action based on allegations that BANA breached the implied 
covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to provide debit cards with EMV 
chips or adequate customer service, BANA denies the allegations set forth in 
Paragraph 624 because those Count IX allegations were dismissed by the Court in its 
May 25, 2023 Order.  See generally ECF No. 126. 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4113     Page
199 of 214

 
200 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 
(Brought by Class Representative Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs in the Abarr, 
Alvarez, Brotman, Meza, Morrell, and Payton Actions) 
625. BANA re-alleges and incorporates its responses to all factual allegations 
set forth in the SAMCC. 
626. BANA denies the allegations in Paragraph 626. 
627. As to the allegations in Paragraph 627 regarding unnamed putative class 
members, BANA lacks information and knowledge sufficient to admit or deny them, 
and therefore denies them.  BANA states that the contract referenced in Paragraph 
627 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content and denies any 
characterization inconsistent with the text of the contract.  All remaining allegations 
in Paragraph 627 state legal conclusions to which no response is required.  To the 
extent a response is required, BANA re-alleges and incorporates its responses to 
Paragraphs 9 through 33 and 114 through 526. 
628. As to the allegations in Paragraph 628 regarding unnamed putative class 
members, BANA lacks information and knowledge sufficient to admit or deny them, 
and therefore denies them.  BANA states that BANA’s contract with EDD and the 
Cardholder Agreement referenced in Paragraph 628 speak for themselves and are the 
best evidence of their contents and denies any characterization inconsistent with the 
text of the contracts.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 628 state legal 
conclusions to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, 
BANA denies them. 
629. BANA states that BANA’s contract with EDD and the Cardholder 
Agreement referenced in Paragraph 629 speak for themselves and are the best 
evidence of their contents and denies any characterization inconsistent with the text 
of the contracts.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 629 state legal conclusions 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4114     Page
200 of 214

 
201 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
630. BANA states that BANA’s contract with EDD and the Cardholder 
Agreement referenced in Paragraph 630 speak for themselves and are the best 
evidence of their contents and denies any characterization inconsistent with the text 
of the contracts.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 630 state legal conclusions 
to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
631. BANA states that BANA’s contract with EDD and the Cardholder 
Agreement referenced in Paragraph 631 speak for themselves and are the best 
evidence of their contents and denies any characterization inconsistent with the text 
of the contracts.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 631 states legal conclusions 
to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
632. BANA states that BANA’s contract with EDD and the Cardholder 
Agreement referenced in Paragraph 632 speak for themselves and are the best 
evidence of their contents and denies any characterization inconsistent with the text 
of the contracts.  All remaining allegations in Paragraph 632 state legal conclusions 
to which no response is required.  To the extent a response is required, BANA denies 
them. 
633. Paragraph 633 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
634. Paragraph 634 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
635. Paragraph 635 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4115     Page
201 of 214

 
202 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
636. Paragraph 636 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Class Representative 
Plaintiffs purport to seek relief on behalf of a class.  BANA denies that class treatment 
is appropriate in this action, denies any liability with respect to Plaintiffs and the 
alleged putative classes, and denies that Plaintiffs and alleged putative classes are 
ascertainable or entitled to damages or any other relief. 
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
BREACH OF CONTRACT (THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES) 
637. [Removed] 
638. [Removed] 
639. [Removed] 
640. [Removed] 
641. [Removed] 
642. [Removed] 
643. [Removed] 
644. [Removed] 
TWELFTH CLAM FOR RELIEF 
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR 
DEALING (THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES) 
645. [Removed] 
646. [Removed] 
647. [Removed] 
648. [Removed] 
649. [Removed] 
650. [Removed] 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4116     Page
202 of 214

 
203 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL DUE PROCESS UNDER THE 14TH 
AMENDMENT 
42 U.S.C. § 1983 
(Brought by Class Representative Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs in the Abarr, 
Alvarez, Brotman, Meza, Morrell, and Payton Actions) 
651. BANA re-alleges and incorporates its responses to all factual allegations 
set forth in the SAMCC. 
652. BANA states that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment, referenced in Paragraph 652 speaks for itself and is the best evidence 
of its content, and denies any characterization inconsistent with the text of the 
Amendment. 
653. BANA states that the statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, referenced in Paragraph 
653 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content and denies any 
characterization inconsistent with the text of the statute. 
654. Paragraph 654 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
655. Paragraph 655 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
656. Paragraph 656 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
657. Paragraph 657 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
658. BANA denies the allegations in Paragraph 658. 
659. Paragraph 659 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4117     Page
203 of 214

 
204 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
660. Paragraph 660 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
661. Paragraph 661 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Class Representative 
Plaintiffs purport to seek relief on behalf of a class.  BANA denies that class treatment 
is appropriate in this action, denies any liability with respect to Plaintiffs and the 
alleged putative classes, and denies that Plaintiffs and alleged putative classes are 
ascertainable or entitled to damages or any other relief. 
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA DUE PROCESS CLAUSE 
Cal. Const. art. I, § 7(a) 
(Brought by Class Representative Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs in the Abarr, 
Alvarez, Brotman, Meza, Morrell, and Payton Actions) 
662. BANA re-alleges and incorporates its responses to all factual allegations 
set forth in the SAMCC. 
663. BANA states that the California Constitution’s due process clause 
referenced in Paragraph 663 speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its content, 
and denies any characterization inconsistent with the text of the Amendment. 
664. Paragraph 664 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
665. Paragraph 665 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA denies them. 
666. Paragraph 666 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.  
To the extent a response is required, BANA admits only that Class Representative 
Plaintiffs purport to seek relief on behalf of a class.  BANA denies that class treatment 
is appropriate in this action, denies any liability with respect to Plaintiffs and the 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4118     Page
204 of 214

 
205 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
alleged putative classes, and denies that Plaintiffs and alleged putative classes are 
ascertainable or entitled to damages or any other relief. 
VII. PLAINTIFF’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF 
BANA denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief they seek. 
VIII. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 
BANA alleges, on information and belief, the defenses set forth below.  In 
doing so, it refers to “Plaintiffs” to encompass named Plaintiffs, members of the 
putative class, and all other individuals seeking relief through the SAMCC, intending 
to assert each defense as to each such person to whom that defense might apply based 
on the facts and circumstances of such person.  It asserts the defenses without 
admitting that it bears the burden of proof or persuasion as to any defense or any 
element thereof.  BANA reserves the right to allege additional affirmative defenses 
as may become apparent during the course of this action. 
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Waiver, Release, Accord and Satisfaction, Judgment) 
Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred or limited by waiver, release, accord and 
satisfaction, judgment, or similar concepts whereby the controversy and/or alleged 
injuries has been resolved in whole or in part. 
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Equitable Relief) 
Plaintiffs’ demand for equitable relief is barred or limited because Plaintiffs 
have an adequate remedy at law and such relief is otherwise unnecessary, unduly 
burdensome, and inequitable. 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4119     Page
205 of 214

 
206 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Equitable Defenses) 
Some or all of Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred or limited, in whole or in 
part, by equitable defenses, including estoppel, unclean hands, and Plaintiffs’ 
inequitable conduct. 
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Intervening Events) 
Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred or limited to the extent that they seek to 
impose liability on BANA for any failure of technology or event or circumstance that 
was not reasonably under BANA’s control or ability to prevent. 
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Acts, Omissions or Requirements of Third Parties) 
Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred or limited insofar as they are based on, 
or insofar as Plaintiffs’ losses or injuries were caused by, the acts or omissions of 
third parties for whom BANA is not responsible or arise from the requirements or 
obligations imposed by third parties, including the State of California. 
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Applicable Laws, Regulations and Contracts) 
To the extent that Plaintiffs have suffered any legally cognizable injuries, 
damages, or harm, which BANA denies, Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred or 
limited because at all relevant times BANA has operated its business in compliance 
with applicable laws, regulations and public contracts. BANA relies on all defenses 
or other protections arising from the terms of or its compliance with such laws, 
regulations and public contracts.  In addition, California state law, and/or federal law 
and regulatory requirements, limitations and mandates, and/or the contract between 
BANA and the State of California caused or contributed to the circumstances of 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4120     Page
206 of 214

 
207 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
which Plaintiffs complain, and BANA cannot be held responsible for having caused 
those circumstances. 
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Consent and Voluntary Agreement) 
Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred or limited by the voluntary choice and 
consent of Plaintiffs to the terms and conditions imposed by the State of California 
and the federal government for the subject benefit program, to Plaintiffs’ voluntary 
decision to receive their benefits through the debit card, and to Plaintiffs’ agreement 
to their Cardholder Agreement with BANA.   
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Authorization, and Comparative or Contributory Fault) 
To the extent Plaintiffs have suffered or will suffer any loss or damages, which 
BANA denies, such loss and damages were caused, in whole or in part, by Plaintiffs’ 
actions, in that Plaintiffs authorized the conduct (such as the use of the debit card by 
others) and/or failed to use ordinary care and diligence or engaged in other conduct 
to create or cause the loss, or to contribute to or cause such damages.  In the event 
any fault of BANA is found to have caused or contributed to cause any damages to 
Plaintiffs  which is denied, any recovery against BANA must be reduced and limited 
by such authorization or comparative or contributory fault of Plaintiffs. 
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Failure, Refusal, or Neglect to Mitigate Damages) 
Plaintiffs have failed, refused, and/or neglected to take reasonable steps to 
mitigate their damages, if any, thus barring or diminishing any recovery. 
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Failure to State a Cause of Action Upon Which Relief Can be Granted) 
The Complaint, and all allegations and causes of action set forth therein, fail 
to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4121     Page
207 of 214

 
208 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Illegality and Fraud) 
Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred or limited to the extent that they engaged 
in enrollment or other form of public benefit fraud, Plaintiffs’ contract and conduct 
were tainted by illegality, or their damages, injuries, or harms were caused by their 
own misconduct or fraudulent representations in their application for benefits and/or 
in connection with an unauthorized transaction claim. 
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Good Faith) 
Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred or limited to the extent they seek to 
impose liability on BANA for acts or omissions that BANA took in good faith, with 
a basis in fact and/or law. 
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Barred by Failure of Like Individual Civil Action) 
The Complaint and relief requested under it through the class action device is 
barred or limited to the extent it prevents or hinders BANA’s right to defend and 
prevail against any individual if that consumer had brought a civil action for relief in 
his or her own name.  BANA is entitled to raise all defenses, including affirmative 
defenses, that may be unique to one or some members of any putative class, and so 
hereby reserves all such defenses.  
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Prospective Relief Barred) 
The Plaintiffs’ claims for prospective relief are barred or limited because the 
conduct on which Plaintiffs’ relief relies is not ongoing and the debit card program 
at issue has terminated. 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4122     Page
208 of 214

 
209 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Laches) 
Some or all of Plaintiffs’ causes of action or requests for relief are barred or 
limited by laches. 
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Mootness) 
Plaintiffs’ causes of action or requests for relief are moot. 
EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Previously-Asserted Defenses) 
BANA re-asserts as a defense each and every ground set forth in their 
previously-filed motion to dismiss, which is incorporated by reference. 
NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Unconstitutional Punitive Damages) 
Plaintiffs cannot recover punitive damages to the extent such damages would 
violate provisions of the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution, including, but 
not limited to, the due process clause contained therein. 
TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Statute of Limitations) 
Some or all of Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred or limited by the 
applicable statute of limitations. 
TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Lack of Particularity) 
The Complaint is too vague for BANA to ascertain the factual bases of any 
cause of action that Plaintiffs are attempting to allege.  This failure may preclude 
BANA from raising all appropriate defenses, and BANA reserves the right to raise 
such affirmative defenses as their applicability becomes clear. 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4123     Page
209 of 214

 
210 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Effect of Failure to Comply with Error Resolution Process) 
Plaintiffs’ EFTA cause of action, and all claims arising under the same facts 
and circumstances, are barred or limited by Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with, and 
waiver of protections they would otherwise have under, the Electronic Funds 
Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693, et seq. and Regulation E, 12 CFR § 1005.1, et seq., 
including the error resolution provisions of EFTA and Regulation E. 
TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Previous Resolution of Errors) 
Plaintiffs’ EFTA cause of action, and all claims arising under the same facts 
and circumstances, are barred or limited because BANA resolved the alleged errors 
correctly and did so in compliance with the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. 
§ 1693, et seq. and Regulation E, 12 CFR § 1005.1, et seq. 
TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Accounts Not Covered Under EFTA or Regulation E) 
Plaintiffs’ EFTA cause of action, and all claims arising under the same facts 
and circumstances, are barred or limited to the extent Plaintiffs’ Accounts do not 
benefit from the relevant requirements or protections of the Electronic Funds 
Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693, et seq. and Regulation E, 12 CFR § 1005.1, et seq., 
including because Pandemic Unemployment Assistance payments are not subject to 
those laws. 
TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Mistake or Error) 
Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred or limited to the extent that they seek to 
impose liability on BANA for any failure due to mistake, inadvertence or bona fide 
error. 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4124     Page
210 of 214

 
211 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(UCL Predicates) 
To the extent Plaintiffs’ cause of action under the Unfair Competition Law is 
based upon predicate laws or regulations, those claims are subject to and limited by 
the scope, exceptions, exclusions, and defenses to such predicate laws or regulations.  
In addition, the UCL cause of action may not be based on predicate laws or 
regulations where the Court has dismissed purported direct claims thereunder. 
TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Pandemic Emergency) 
Some or all of Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred or limited to the extent 
the COVID-19 pandemic emergency that existed in California in 2020 and 2021 
caused or contributed to the circumstances of which Plaintiffs complain or created or 
contributed to circumstances that were never anticipated and could not reasonably 
have been avoided. 
TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Defenses Derivative of State Defenses) 
To the extent some or all of Plaintiffs’ causes of action are based on acts or 
omission directed by or engaged in collectively with the State of California, those 
causes of action are barred or limited to the fullest extent the State would have a 
defense to a direct claim based on those circumstances. 
TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(EFTA Treble Damages) 
Plaintiffs cannot recover treble damages under the EFTA to the extent such 
damages would violate provisions of the U.S. Constitution and California 
Constitution, including, but not limited to, the due process clause contained therein. 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4125     Page
211 of 214

 
212 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Preemption) 
Some or all of Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred or limited by principles 
of federal preemption, to the extent recovery would be inconsistent with federal law, 
regulation, or guidance. 
THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(EFTA and Regulation E) 
Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims arising under or in connection with the 
requirements and rights of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693, et 
seq. and Regulation E, 12 CFR § 1005.1, et seq are barred or limited by the scope, 
exclusions, exceptions, limitations and defenses provided by those laws, including 
but not limited to  15 U.S.C. §§  1693h, 1693j and 1693m. 
THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Alternative Relief) 
Some or all of Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred or limited by other forms 
of remedies or relief they have received, including pursuant to merchant refunds or 
credits provided, payments from the State of California, reconsiderations of error 
claims, and payments from or account adjustments performed by BANA. 
THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Permissible Conduct) 
Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred or limited under principles of license, 
privilege, permission, ratification and similar concepts barring recovery where the 
acts or conduct at issue were permissible or permitted. 
THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(CCPA) 
Some or all of Plaintiffs’ causes of action arising under or in connection with 
the requirements and rights of the California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4126     Page
212 of 214

 
213 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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 
§§ 1798.100 et seq., are barred or limited by the scope, exclusions, exceptions, 
limitations and defenses provided by that law. 
THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Due Process) 
Plaintiffs’ causes of action under federal and state due process provisions are 
barred or limited based on the pre- and post-deprivation procedures and remedies 
provided by the State and/or BANA, or due to the acts of the State in failing to 
provide such procedures, or under the circumstances were reasonable, or due to 
Plaintiffs’ consent including through the Cardholder Agreement, or Plaintiffs were 
not entitled to such procedures to the extent they engaged in fraud or were not eligible 
for the subject benefits. 
THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Governing Law) 
Some or all of Plaintiffs’ causes of action, or related rights, are governed by 
laws other than federal law or California law, including the law of the domicile of 
the Plaintiff, and to that extent BANA relies on such states’ laws and reserves all 
defenses under such states’ laws. 
THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Lack of Standing) 
Plaintiffs’ causes of action are barred or limited to the extent they lack standing 
to assert those claims, including their claims under the CCPA. 
THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 
(Cure) 
Plaintiffs are not entitled to statutory damages under the CCPA because BANA 
fully cured any purported CCPA violation. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4127     Page
213 of 214

 
214 
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
SECOND AMENDED MASTER CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 
 
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: August 15, 2024 
Respectfully Submitted, 
By: s/ James W. McGarry 
JAMES W. MCGARRY 
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 
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. 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 316     Filed 08/15/24     PageID.4128     Page
214 of 214

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.316.0.pdf

Size

695,839 bytes

SHA-256

0ea8968c078020c529c8679dad8e59524a1a537c41dbc8817dea5378c6867897

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.316.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)