ORDER Granting in Part Individual Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion to Stay Their… — Bofa Ca Unemployment (Dkt. 338)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 338 · 2024-08-23 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
21MD2992-GPC(MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA 
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT 
BENEFITS LITIGATION, 
 
 Case No.:  21MD2992-GPC(MSB) 
 
ORDER GRANTING IN PART 
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS’ 
EXPEDITED MOTION TO STAY  
THEIR PROCEEDINGS  
 
[Dkt. No. 311.] 
 
 
Before the Court is Individual Plaintiffs’ expedited motion to stay their cases 
pending resolution of the common issues of law and fact in this multidistrict litigation 
case.   (Dkt. No. 311.)  The Class Plaintiffs filed a notice of joinder.1  (Dkt. No. 320.)  An 
opposition was filed by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. on August 23, 2024, and a 
reply was filed by Individual Plaintiffs on August 30, 2024.  (Dkt. Nos. 321, 325.)  A 
hearing was held on September 9, 2024.  (Dkt. No. 331.)  Based on the reasoning below, 
 
1 BANA objects to the notice of joinder filed by Class Plaintiffs as untimely, procedurally improper, and 
also without merit.  (Dkt. No. 321 at 21-22.)  The Court agrees with BANA that the arguments raised by 
Class Plaintiffs are duplicative of the ones raised by Individual Plaintiffs.  Therefore, the Court need not 
consider Class Plaintiffs’ notice of joinder and whether it is untimely and procedurally improper.  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB   Document 338   Filed 09/17/24   PageID.7915   Page 1 of 14

 
2 
21MD2992-GPC(MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Court GRANTS in part Individual Plaintiffs’ expedited motion to stay proceedings 
until a ruling on the motion for class certification.   
Background 
 
This multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) arises from several class actions (“Class 
Plaintiffs”) and a large number of individual actions (“Individual Plaintiffs”) brought 
against Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) over its administration of the 
electronic benefits payment system for California’s Employment Development 
Department (“EDD”) during the COVID-19 pandemic.  (See Dkt. No. 304, Second 
Amended Master Consolidated Complaint (“SAMCC”).)  EDD, the administrator of 
unemployment benefits in California, entered into an exclusive contract with BANA, to 
distribute those benefits through Bank-issued and Bank-administered prepaid debit cards 
which are linked to individual Bank depository accounts.  (Id. ¶¶ 1, 2, 39.)  The relevant 
contract at issue was in effect from August 1, 2016 through July 31, 2021.  (Id. ¶ 42.)   
Class and Individual Plaintiffs, like other millions of Californians, lost their jobs 
during the COVID-19 pandemic and were found eligible by EDD for unemployment and 
other public benefits.  (Id. ¶ 1.)  The state’s unemployment rate skyrocketed from 3.9% in 
January 2020 to 16.4% in April 2020 following Governor Gavin Newsom’s closure 
orders.  (Id. ¶ 74.)  Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, EDD 
received at least 18.5 million claims for various unemployment benefits.  (Id. ¶ 75.)  For 
example, in the first week of December 2000, EDD received 341,813 claims which was a 
600% increase from December 2019.  (Id.)  Per the exclusive contract between EDD and 
BANA, the BANA issued benefit payments to individuals found eligible for 
unemployment benefits through more than 9 million Bank-issued and Bank-administered 
prepaid debit cards.  (Id. ¶ 2.)  These pre-paid debit cards were subject to rampant third-
party fraud during the COVID-19 pandemic and tens of millions of dollars have been 
stolen from these bank accounts.  (Id. ¶¶ 76-78.)  All Plaintiffs similarly claim that 
BANA “failed to safeguard and properly manage benefits during the pandemic and 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB   Document 338   Filed 09/17/24   PageID.7916   Page 2 of 14

 
3 
21MD2992-GPC(MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
unlawfully froze or denied access to funds in recipients’ debit card accounts.”  (Dkt. No. 
1.)   
On January 14, 2021, Class Plaintiff Jennifer Yick commenced a purported class 
action titled Yick v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 3:21-cv-376, in the United States District 
Court for the Northern District of California.  (Id. ¶ 106.)  Eight2 additional class actions 
were subsequently filed and consolidated with Yick on March 29, 2021.  (Id.)  Since the 
filing of Yick, other class action plaintiffs and hundreds of individual plaintiffs have filed 
actions against BANA for injuries stemming from the same alleged conduct.   
On June 4, 2021, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Yick 
class action and individually filed actions to this Court for consolidated pretrial 
proceedings and assigned it to District Judge Larry A. Burns.3  (Dkt. No. 1.)  On July 19, 
2021, the Court held a preliminary case management conference to address case 
management of the pleadings, an organizational structure for Plaintiffs’ counsel and 
parameters on discovery involving, at that time, the Yick consolidated putative class 
action, three putative class actions and eleven individual actions.  (Dkt. Nos. 48, 55.)   
In the order following the preliminary case management conference (“July 2021 
Order”), the Court appointed Cotchett, Pitre, & McCarthy LLP and Altshuler Berzon 
LLP as Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Class Plaintiffs and appointed Casey Gerry Schenk 
Fancavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP as Interim Liaison Counsel for Class Plaintiffs.  (Dkt. 
No. 48 at 2-3.4)  Daniel G. Shay, and shortly thereafter, Joshua Swigert, (Dkt. No. 56), 
were appointed Interim Co-Liaison Counsel for Individual Plaintiffs.  (Dkt. No. 48 at 3.)  
In line with the parties’ positions to proceed with the Class and Individual Plaintiffs’ 
cases together, (Dkt. No. 55), the Court directed Interim Co-Lead Counsel to file a single 
 
2 It appears that seven additional class actions were filed in the Northern District of California after Yick.  
(Dkt. No. 1 at 4.)   
3 The MDL and related member cases were transferred to the undersigned judge on April 8, 2024.  (Dkt. 
No. 261.)   
4 Page numbers are based on the CM/ECF pagination.   
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB   Document 338   Filed 09/17/24   PageID.7917   Page 3 of 14

 
4 
21MD2992-GPC(MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
master consolidated complaint (“MCC”) to include all claims on behalf of the putative 
class and individual plaintiffs’ claims.  (Id. at 2.)  Any individual plaintiff’s claims not 
included in the consolidated complaint were stayed.  (Id.)  As such, any new cases filed 
or tag along cases transferred after the filing of the MCC have been stayed until 
resolution of the MDL.  (See Dkt. No. 85 (“the Court intends to stay new and related 
actions until the multidistrict litigation is resolved.  On a party’s motion after such a stay 
is lifted, the Court will consider applying its MDL rulings to the non-consolidated cases 
via nonmutual collateral estoppel or any other applicable theory”); see also Case No. 
21cv1659, Dkt. No. 8 (“Court orders all deadlines in this matter STAYED pending 
resolution of the related multidistrict litigation”); Case No. 21cv1660, Dkt. No. 8 (same).)  
As to discovery, the Court ordered that “[n]o plaintiff may make any request for or 
respond to discovery, initiate or file any other pretrial or trial proceedings (except that 
individual plaintiffs not already involved in a member case may file new complaints), or 
file or respond to any dispositive motion except through Interim Co-Lead Counsel.”  (Id. 
at 3.)   
 
On May 25, 2023, almost two years later, the discovery stay was lifted when the 
Court ruled on Defendant’s motion to dismiss the MCC.  (Dkt. No. 126 at 75.)  On June 
2, 2023, Class Plaintiffs submitted a joint discovery plan in advance of the case 
management conference where discovery was contemplated to be conducted by both 
Class and Individual Plaintiffs.  (Dkt. No. 131 at 2 n. 2 (“Liaison Counsel for the non-
class plaintiffs to meet and confer regarding the timing of discovery as to the non-class 
plaintiffs.”).  A scheduling order was issued on June 16, 2023 where deadlines were set 
for discovery and did not distinguish between Individual Plaintiffs and Class Plaintiffs.  
(Dkt. No. 139.)   An amended scheduling order was filed on June 27, 2024 setting a 
deadline for fact discovery for both Individual and Class Plaintiffs on December 12, 
2024.  (Dkt. No. 302 at 2.)   
After additional motions were filed to settle the pleadings, on July 16, 2024, the 
Second Amended Master Consolidated Complaint (“SAMCC”) was filed and includes 21 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB   Document 338   Filed 09/17/24   PageID.7918   Page 4 of 14

 
5 
21MD2992-GPC(MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Class Plaintiffs and 133 Individual Plaintiffs.  (Dkt. No. 304.)  An answer was filed on 
August 15, 2024.  (Dkt. No. 316.)  At this time, there are an additional 257 individual 
plaintiffs that have filed actions whose claims are not included in the SAMCC and are 
currently stayed.  (Dkt. No. 311-1 at 4 n. 1, 7-8.)   
Since the lifting of the discovery stay in May 2023, Class Plaintiffs and BANA 
have been actively engaged in discovery.  Individual Plaintiffs have also been engaged in 
discovery concerning their individual cases but have not been fully privy to all discovery 
produced by BANA.  (See Dkt. No. 311-2, Swigert Decl. ¶ 14; Dkt. No. 321-1, Brys 
Decl. ¶¶ 25-38.)   
Pursuant to a ruling from Magistrate Judge Berg on February 12, 2024, BANA was 
allowed to take the depositions of ten Individual Plaintiffs prior to the filing of the motion 
for class certification.  (Dkt. No. 321-1, Brys Decl. ¶ 40.)  Therefore, from March 7, 
2024, to May 7, 2024, BANA took the depositions of five Individual Plaintiffs with their 
counsel’s attendance and participation.  (Id. ¶¶ 41-45.)  On July 11, 2024, BANA served 
a Notice of Deposition to the remaining 128 Individual Plaintiffs with depositions to 
commence on September 16, 2024 and continuing through September 27, 2024.  (Id. ¶ 
56.)  In response to concerns expressed by Individual Plaintiffs, on August 9, 2024, 
BANA served an Amended Notice of Deposition to the remaining 128 Individual 
Plaintiffs and offered that each deposition take place at a central location within the 
federal judicial district where each Individual Plaintiff lives.  (Id. ¶ 60.)  In order to take 
the depositions of 128 individuals, the amended notice of deposition generally schedules 
four depositions per day between September 16, 2024 through November 7, 2024.  (Dkt. 
No. 331-3, Swigert Decl., Ex. A.) 
In response, on August 13, 2024, Individual Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to 
stay their proceedings pending resolution of common issues of law and fact5 in the Class 
 
5 Individual Plaintiffs seek to stay proceedings “pending resolution of related class action certification”, 
(Dkt. No. 311-1 (caption)); “pending resolution of common issues of law and fact”, (Dkt. No. 311-1 at 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB   Document 338   Filed 09/17/24   PageID.7919   Page 5 of 14

 
6 
21MD2992-GPC(MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Action which will streamline the litigation, including discovery, because the individual 
and class claims substantially overlap.  (Dkt. No. 311-1.)  BANA filed a response and 
Individual Plaintiffs replied.  (Dkt. Nos. 321, 325.)    
Discussion 
A. 
Landis Stay  
 
A federal district court possesses the inherent power to “control the disposition of 
the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for 
litigants.”  Landis v. N. American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). 
Where it is proposed that a pending proceeding be stayed, the competing 
interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay 
must be weighed. Among those competing interests are [1] the possible 
damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or 
inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] 
the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or 
complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected 
to result from a stay. 
 
Lockyer v. Mirant, 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 
F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)).  “A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for 
its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, 
pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.  This rule . . . 
does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling of the 
action before the court.”  Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 
863 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180 
(1952)).  The related proceeding need only narrow factual or legal issues for the court and 
the stay is generally for a limited duration.  See Landis, 299 U.S. at 255-56 (recognizing 
 
18 (conclusion)); and “allowing the depositions to take place after class certification and dispositive 
motions are resolved,” (Dkt. No. 325 at 5).  The length of the requested stay by Individual Plaintiffs is 
not clear.  Reviewing the Individual Plaintiffs’ briefing, the Court relies on the reply statement that seeks 
a stay pending resolution of the motion for class certification and motion for summary judgment since it 
provides a more specific time frame for the stay.  (See Dkt. No. 325 at 5.) 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB   Document 338   Filed 09/17/24   PageID.7920   Page 6 of 14

 
7 
21MD2992-GPC(MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that the related case “may not settle every question of fact and law” in the stayed federal 
action and a district court abuses its discretion by entering a “stay of indefinite duration 
in the absence of a pressing need”); Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. 
Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2007) (reversing district court for imposing Landis 
stay of indefinite nature).  A district court has discretion whether to grant or deny a 
Landis stay.  See Dependable Highway Express, Inc., 498 F.3d at 1066.   
 
1. 
Hardship if Stay is Granted 
Individual Plaintiffs argue there is no prejudice to BANA if a brief stay is granted 
because it would not have to expend extra resources deposing 133 Individual Plaintiffs 
and can focus its resources on opposing the class certification motion.  (Dkt. No. 311-1 at 
12-13.)  BANA responds that it would suffer undue prejudice if the Individual Plaintiffs’ 
cases are stayed because discovery is nearly complete and it has already spent nearly $8 
million in discovery costs alone and produced over 277,000 documents, 3,700 of which 
relate to the Individual Plaintiffs’ claims.  (Dkt. No. 321 at 11.)   
On this factor, “[i]f there is even a fair possibility that the stay . . . will work 
damage to someone else,” the party seeking the stay “must make out a clear case of 
hardship or inequity.”  Landis, 299 U.S. at 255 (internal quotation marks omitted); see 
also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997) (“The moving party has the burden of 
proving such a stay is justified.”).  Courts “are generally unwilling to presume delay is 
harmful without specific supporting evidence.” Aliphcom v. Fitbit, Inc., 154 F. Supp. 3d 
933, 938 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2015).  A general claim of harm due to a delay in litigation 
is not sufficient.  See id. 
Here, BANA has not identified or provided any evidence of any harm it will suffer 
if a stay were granted.  BANA alleges harm solely because the motion was raised late in 
the case where it has already incurred significant resources in completing discovery and 
relies on Seufert v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Case No.: 13cv2169 AJB (MDD), 
2016 WL 9503735, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016).  (Dkt. No. 321 at 11.)  In Seufert, the 
district court denied a motion to stay consideration of a summary judgment motion on 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB   Document 338   Filed 09/17/24   PageID.7921   Page 7 of 14

 
8 
21MD2992-GPC(MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
preemption while the related MDL case was on appeal from a judgment granted in favor 
of the MDL defendants based on the same issue of preemption.  Seufert, 2016 WL 
9503735, at *1.  Even though the MDL appeal addressed the same issue in the pending 
summary judgment motion, the court questioned why the parties had not previously 
anticipated a stay prior to the start of preemption discovery noting that the plaintiff 
sought a stay after the parties had completed extensive discovery on preemption and after 
the defendant had already filed the summary judgment motion on preemption.  Id. at *2-
3.  Therefore, based on the state of the case, the Court determined that to delay ruling on 
the preemption motion was not efficient for the parties or the court.  Id. (“Plaintiffs’ 
proposition that no prejudice will result from a stay because discovery is now complete 
disregards the significant resources exhausted in undertaking and completing discovery, 
all of which was premised on Defendants’ eventual filing of a preemption summary 
judgment motion.  Delaying resolution of Defendants’ preemption-based motion, after 
nearly two years of discovery is not efficient for the parties or the Court.”).    
Here, unlike Seufert, BANA has not articulated any reason why the Individual 
Plaintiffs’ depositions need to be completed now and whether this discovery is relevant to 
resolving any pending motions before the Court.  Further, significant resources on 
discovery have been expended but primarily with regards to the Class Plaintiffs case, not 
necessarily with the Individual Plaintiffs.6  Further, BANA claims Individual Plaintiffs’ 
motion to stay was brought late in the proceedings.  However, the case is still in its early 
stages.  The pleadings were only recently settled in July 2024 with an answer filed on 
August 15, 2024.  (Dkt. Nos. 304, 315.)  The motion for class certification was recently 
filed on August 28, 2024.  (Dkt. No. 324.)  Further, discovery for the individual plaintiffs 
 
6 While discovery with the Individual Plaintiffs will substantially overlap with Class Plaintiffs, 
Individual Plaintiffs assert they will need to propound their own written discovery and notice and take 
required depositions.  (Dkt. No. 311-2, Swigart Decl. ¶ 18.)  Moreover, BANA states that it has already 
produced over 277,000 documents and only about 3,700 documents totaling 14,000 pages were related 
to the Individual Plaintiffs.  (Dkt. No. 321-1, Brys Decl. ¶¶ 13, 16.)   
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB   Document 338   Filed 09/17/24   PageID.7922   Page 8 of 14

 
9 
21MD2992-GPC(MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in the 257 other cases that have been stayed have not even begun and may need to be re-
opened or addressed at a later date once the class action proceedings have concluded.  
The Court sees no harm to BANA by delaying discovery of the Individual Plaintiffs and 
the Seufert case is inapposite.7   
Additionally, BANA’s concerns about delaying discovery due to the risk of 
witnesses’ memories fading, witnesses relocating or becoming unavailable, and evidence 
becoming stale or dissipating are speculative and no evidence has been provided that 
such risks exist.  See Fahmy v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., No. 2-15-CV-01158-CAS, 2015 
WL 3617040, at *13 (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2015) (“plaintiff's concerns about losing 
witnesses [due to death or leaving the area] during its pendency are entirely 
speculative.”).  Thus, BANA’s alleged hardships do not support a stay.  
2. 
Hardship if Stay Not Granted 
 
On the other hand, Individual Plaintiffs claim they would suffer extreme hardship 
and inequity by having to defend 128 depositions without having had access to all of their 
records and without the Court’s ruling on common issues of law and fact.  (Dkt. No. 311-
1 at 13.)  Due to the restrictions imposed by the July 2021 Order, Individual Plaintiffs 
claim they have been excluded from actively participating in discovery.  (Id.)  They assert 
they had “extremely” limited access to the discovery produced by BANA in response to 
Interim Class Counsel’s discovery requests and were only invited to “observe” the 
deposition of BANA’s Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses and could not participate by asking 
questions.  (Id. at 13-14.)  Finally, they claim they have been limited to requesting only 
 
7 Some of the cases relied upon by BANA are not applicable as they did not concern a Landis stay.  See 
Omnitracs, LLC v. Platform Sciences, Inc., Case No.: 20-cv-0958-JLS-MDD, 2021 WL 857005, at *3 
(S.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2021) (factor to consider in staying of action pending inter partes review include 
“whether discovery is complete and whether a trial has been set.”); In JoshCo Tech, LLC v. MJJ&L 
Holdings, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-00428-APG-NJK, 2020 WL 8254262, at *1–2 (D. Nev. Sept. 2, 2020) 
(relying on Rule 1 to secure a “just, speedy and inexpensive determination of cases” and court’s 
discretionary power to control discovery to determine whether a stay was warranted); and Ross-Nash v. 
Almond, No. 2:19-cv-00957-APG, NJK, 2020 WL 11036016, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 18, 2020) (same).   
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB   Document 338   Filed 09/17/24   PageID.7923   Page 9 of 14

 
10 
21MD2992-GPC(MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
their individual files, responding to written discovery served by BANA and sitting for 
their depositions.  (Id.)  Without a stay, Individual Plaintiffs argue they will be severely 
prejudiced in their attempt to play “catch up” by propounding and responding to 
discovery in 133 cases, reviewing hundreds of thousands of documents, and seeking 
motions to compel, if necessary, in a short amount of time.  (Id. at 15.)   
 
In contrast, BANA argues the Individual Plaintiffs have been actively engaged in 
discovery since June 5, 2023 and have sought their individual files as well other 
discovery relating to them.  (Dkt. No. 321 at 15.)  Moreover, Individual Plaintiffs’ 
counsel has participated in at least 22 status and discovery conferences, attended the five 
Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of BANA witnesses and served 150 third-party subpoenas to 
their telephone service providers.  (Id. n. 7.)   
In reply, Individual Plaintiffs explain that it was their understanding after the July 
2021 Order that, except for discovery related to any unique defenses to any of the 
Individual Plaintiffs, their cases would be paused until the MDL is completed or at least 
until summary judgment.  (Dkt. No. 325 at 3-4.)  They also argue they raised the stay 
issue only after BANA “changed its position and sent notice for approximately 122 
individual depositions” and the June 2024 Amended Scheduling Order suddenly, for the 
first time, opened discovery for both Class Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs.  (Id. at 3-
5.)  They claim that the June 2023 Scheduling order limited the discovery deadline to just 
Class Counsel and defense counsel.  (Id. at 4.) 
Individual Plaintiffs’ understanding that their cases had been on hold until the 
summary judgment stage or until the MDL is over is belied by the record.  The Court has 
reviewed the transcript of the preliminary case management conference, reviewed the 
parties’ status conference statements, and the preliminary case management order.  (Dkt. 
Nos. 31, 32, 55, 48.)  The individual plaintiffs, initially, did not seek a stay of their cases 
pending the class action; instead, they sought to litigate the case.  (Dkt. No. 55.)  At that 
time, Interim Co-Lead Counsel in Yick, who was appointed Interim Co-Lead Counsel in 
the MDL, and certain individual plaintiffs’ counsel agreed, in their status conference 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB   Document 338   Filed 09/17/24   PageID.7924   Page 10 of 14

 
11 
21MD2992-GPC(MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
statement, that “plaintiffs in the individual actions will be bound by the Court’s legal 
determinations regarding causes of action that are asserted in the consolidated class 
action.  Counsel further agree that, with the exception of discovery relating to the specific 
records of the individual plaintiffs at Bank of America, all discovery requests and 
depositions will be made by and through interim co-lead counsel for the Class Action 
Plaintiffs in coordination with counsel for the individual plaintiffs.”  (Dkt. No. 31 at 10.)  
The Court’s order adopted their position that “[n]o plaintiff may make any request for or 
response to discovery, initiate or file any other pretrial or trial proceedings . . . or file or 
respond to any dispositive motion except through Interim Co-Lead Counsel.”  (Dkt. No. 
48 at 3.)   
Ultimately, the Court’s order did not stay discovery of the Individual Plaintiffs 
cases but only directed that the Individual Plaintiffs conduct discovery through Interim 
Co-Lead Counsel.  (Id.)  The record provided by BANA’s counsel shows that Individual 
Plaintiffs have been actively engaged in discovery but not to the fullest extent due to the 
procedural limitations of the Court’s July 2021 Order.  (Dkt. No. 321-2, Brys Decl. ¶¶ 
21-54.)   
Further, if Individual Plaintiffs believed their cases would be paused until the 
“MDL is over”, it does not explain why Individual Plaintiffs have been engaged in 
discovery.  In addition, Individual Plaintiffs have not explained how BANA “changed its 
position” and have not explained how the June 2024 Amended Scheduling Order opened 
discovery for the first time to both Class Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs.  The June 
2023 Scheduling Order applied to all parties too.  (See Dkt. Nos. 137, 139.)  Moreover, 
having participated in the case management conference of June 26, 2024, Individual 
Plaintiffs did not object to the fact discovery deadline set for December 12, 2024.  (Dkt. 
Nos. 301, 302.)  Individual Plaintiffs only recently raised the issue of the stay on July 25, 
2024 and they have not sufficiently explained why it was not raised sooner in light of 
their argument that they seek a stay because all new cases filed since the MCC have been 
stayed.  (Dkt. No. 321-1, Brys Decl. ¶¶ 57, 58.)   
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB   Document 338   Filed 09/17/24   PageID.7925   Page 11 of 14

 
12 
21MD2992-GPC(MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Finally, to the extent Individual Plaintiffs were barred or “hamstrung” from 
conducting any discovery, they do not explain, with specifics, how they have been 
excluded from the discovery process or who has barred them from the discovery process.  
To the extent they were barred or limited, they should have sought relief from the 
Magistrate Judge.  To the extent the limitation in seeking discovery was self-imposed 
and/or based on a misunderstanding of the July 2021 Order, Individual Plaintiffs have not 
shown that BANA was at fault.8  Thus, Individual Plaintiffs’ purported hardships do not 
support a stay.  
 
3. 
 Judicial Economy and the Orderly Course of Justice 
 
Individual Plaintiffs contend that a stay of proceedings pending resolution of the 
class action proceedings will promote judicial economy and efficiency as well as party 
economy.  (Dkt. No. 311-1 at 15-17.)  They argue the Court’s ruling on class certification 
and summary judgment will reduce the number of issues to be determined for the 
Individual Plaintiffs’ cases either because some will dismiss and join the class and others, 
who opt out of the Class, will be streamlined because the individual and class claims 
substantially overlap.  (Id. at 16-17.)  In response, BANA maintains that it would be more 
efficient to simply complete the depositions now rather than pause discovery and restart it 
likely in 2026.  (Dkt. No. 321 at 19.)   
 
On the final factor, the Court considers “the orderly course of justice measured in 
terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which 
could be expected to result from a stay.”  Landis, 299 U.S. at 255; see CMAX, 300 F.2d at 
268.   A stay promotes the orderly cause of justice where the underlying proceedings are 
likely to decide or contribute to the issues before the court.  See McGraw v. W. Serv. 
 
8 Individual Plaintiffs argue that BANA is only seeking to take the depositions of the 128 plaintiffs in 
order to use them for purposes of its opposition to class certification.  Whether taking the depositions of 
the Individual Plaintiffs are in violation of any case management order or the parameters of the parties’ 
class certification discovery is not before this Court.  Any such issues should have been raised with the 
Magistrate Judge and the Court declines to comment on it. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB   Document 338   Filed 09/17/24   PageID.7926   Page 12 of 14

 
13 
21MD2992-GPC(MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Cont. Corp, No. 13-CV-05129-JST, 2014 WL 12573519, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2014) 
(granting a preliminary injunction and staying discovery where “the resolution of the 
underlying litigation necessarily bears on the indemnification rights at issue in this 
action.”); see also Fahmy v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., No. 2-15-CV-01158-CAS, 2015 WL 
3617040, at *13 (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2015) (“Although the outcome of the [underlying 
case] will not necessarily be dispositive of this case, that outcome will certainly inform 
this case.”).    
The Court concludes that judicial economy and the orderly course of justice 
support a stay until a ruling on the motion for class certification but not until a ruling on 
any summary judgment motions.  A ruling on class certification will likely narrow the 
number of Individual Plaintiffs’ cases.  The parties do not dispute that the Class Plaintiffs 
and Individual Plaintiffs’ claims substantially overlap and if the Court certifies a Class, 
certain Individual Plaintiffs may dismiss their individual suits and join the Class.  If the 
Court does not certify any Class, then the short, limited stay will be lifted.  While BANA 
complains of the exorbitant amount it has already expended on discovery, a stay, at this 
time, will protect it from any unnecessary and wasteful discovery.  See Finder v. Leprino 
Foods Co., CASE NO. 1:13-CV-02059-AWI-BAM, 2017 WL 1355104, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 
Jan. 20, 2017) (citation omitted) (conducting “substantial, unrecoverable, and wasteful” 
discovery that could be mooted after pending proceedings are resolved justifies a stay).  
Efficiency and judicial economy support conducting the individual actions after 
resolution of the class certification motion.    
As to staying the case until a ruling on summary judgment, Individual Plaintiffs 
have not provided any information as to whether summary judgment motions will be 
filed, and if filed, by which party or parties, and what issues would promote efficiency 
and judicial economy.  Therefore, the Court, at this time, declines to stay the case until a 
ruling on summary judgment.  
 
BANA also argues that the length of the stay Individual Plaintiffs are seeking is 
nebulous and may likely be indefinite in nature due to the potential appeals of the order 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB   Document 338   Filed 09/17/24   PageID.7927   Page 13 of 14

 
14 
21MD2992-GPC(MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on the motion for class certification.  (Dkt. No. 321 at 12-13.)  The hearing on the motion 
for class certification is set on January 17, 2025 with an order intended to be issued 
shortly after that date.  (Dkt. No. 302 at 3.)  Therefore, the stay sought by Individual 
Plaintiffs is short and finite.  To the extent that BANA contends that the stay may be 
extended due to a potential appeal is speculation.  In the event an appeal is filed on the 
class certification order, the Court will reassess whether a stay of the Individual 
Plaintiffs’ cases should remain or be lifted at that time.  At this time, the Court concludes 
that the stay sought is of limited duration.   
 
After carefully considering the parties’ competing interests under the Landis 
factors, which do not support a stay, the Court ultimately finds the efficient 
administration of justice and potential waste of judicial and party resources support a 
limited stay.  See Babaria v. Blinken, Case No. 22-cv-05521-SI, 2023 WL 187497, at *2-
3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2023) (granting stay where the balance of hardships was neutral but 
judicial economy weighed heavily in favor of granting a stay, given the overlap in issues 
presented).  Thus, the Court GRANTS Individual Plaintiffs’ motion to stay their 
proceedings until resolution of the motion for class certification and DENIES without 
prejudice a stay beyond the ruling on the class certification order.   
Conclusion 
 
Based on the reasoning above, the Court GRANTS in part Individual Plaintiffs’ 
expedited motion to stay their proceedings until a ruling on the class certification motion.  
Within 10 day of the filing of the Court’s order on the class certification motion, the 
parties must file a joint or ex parte motion to lift the stay, or a joint or ex parte motion to 
continue the stay.   
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated:  September 17, 2024 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB   Document 338   Filed 09/17/24   PageID.7928   Page 14 of 14

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.338.0.pdf

Size

241,936 bytes

SHA-256

5a8fe0f0884717c87b0734b87436718fe28684ce2169af007ae7038b50438b9d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.338.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)