Notice of Joinder by Consolidated Plaintiffs re 311 Motion to Stay Individual — In re BofA Unemployment Litigation (Dkt. 320)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 320 · 2024-09-09 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Class Plaintiffs’ Joinder In Individual Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay [ECF 311] 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (SBN 36324) 
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com 
BRIAN DANITZ (SBN 247403) 
bdanitz@cpmlegal.com 
KARIN B. SWOPE (Pro Hac Vice) 
kswope@cpmlegal.com 
ANDREW F. KIRTLEY (SBN 328023) 
akirtley@cpmlegal.com 
VASTI S. MONTIEL (SBN 346409) 
vmontiel@cpmlegal.com 
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 
Burlingame, CA 94010 
Telephone: (650) 697-6000 
Fax: (650) 697-0577 
MICHAEL RUBIN (SBN 80618) 
mrubin@altber.com 
STACEY M. LEYTON (SBN 203827) 
sleyton@altber.com 
CONNIE K. CHAN (SBN 284230) 
cchan@altber.com 
KATHERINE G. BASS (SBN 344748) 
kbass@altber.com 
COLIN C. JONES (SBN 354301) 
cjones@altber.com 
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 
177 Post Street, Suite 300 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
Telephone: (415) 421-7151 
Fax: (415) 362-8064 
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class  
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
IN RE BANK OF AMERICA 
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT 
BENEFITS LITIGATION 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB 
 
CLASS PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF 
JOINDER AND JOINDER IN 
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 
TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING 
RESOLUTION OF RELATED CLASS 
ACTION CERTIFICATION [ECF 311] 
 
Date: 
September 9, 2024 
Time: 
2:30 p.m. 
Ctrm:   
2D (2nd Floor) 
Judge:  
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 
 
This Document Relates to All Actions 
 
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 320     Filed 08/22/24     PageID.4134     Page 1
of 6

 
Class Plaintiffs’ Joinder In Individual Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay [ECF 311] 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB 
1 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Class Plaintiffs in this multidistrict litigation 
(“MDL”) hereby join in the Motion to Stay Individual Plaintiffs’ Cases (“Motion”) (ECF 311), 
and all submissions filed in support of that Motion, which seeks a temporary stay of the 
133 Individual Plaintiff cases and thus appropriately seeks to place these 133 cases on the 
same track as the nearly-identical 257 individual plaintiff cases that have already been 
stayed pending the outcome of the Class proceedings.1 
The 133 Individual Plaintiffs’ Motion sets forth many compelling reasons why their 
cases should be temporarily stayed until after this Court rules on class certification and 
dispositive motions in the Class Case, including: (1) the absence of any prejudice to Bank 
of America (the “Bank”), which has still not explained why it needs to take 128 of those 
Individual Plaintiffs’ depositions now, on a compressed schedule in the middle of class 
certification briefing;2 (2) the likelihood of substantial prejudice to the 133 Individual 
Plaintiffs; and (3) the inefficiencies and burdens on the court system and the litigants of 
engaging in full-blown discovery on the claims and defenses applicable to each of the 133 
Individual Plaintiffs before this Court issues threshold rulings in the Class Case on common 
issues that will necessarily impact the scope of discovery, the issues that may be pursued 
in these MDL proceedings, and the number of the Individual Plaintiffs who will ultimately 
decide to have their cases adjudicated on an individual rather than classwide basis. Class 
Plaintiffs will not repeat the arguments made by Individual Plaintiffs, but respectfully 
request that the Court consider two additional points. 
 
1 See ECF 311-1 (MP&A iso Mot.) at 4-5 (listing 257 individual plaintiffs whose cases are 
stayed); see, e.g., Abila v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 3:21-cv-01766 GPC-MSB, ECF 1 (Oct. 
13, 2021) (case brought by 244 individual plaintiffs), stayed by ECF 8 (Oct. 22, 2021) 
(ordering “all deadlines in this matter STAYED pending resolution of the related MDL”). 
2 The Bank already took five of the 133 Individual Plaintiffs’ depositions as part of its 
presumptive limit of ten non-expert depositions per side in the Class Case under Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i). 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 320     Filed 08/22/24     PageID.4135     Page 2
of 6

 
Class Plaintiffs’ Joinder In Individual Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay [ECF 311] 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB 
2 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. 
Granting the requested stay will best serve the purposes of this MDL, which 
is to “‘promote the just and efficient conduct’ of ‘civil actions involving one or more 
common questions of fact [that] are pending in different districts[.]’” In re Uber Techs., 
Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., 2024 WL 2269321, at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. 2024) 
(“Uber”) (quoting In re Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 642 F.3d 685, 698-99 (9th Cir. 2011)); 
see also id. at *8, quoting H.R. Rep. No. 1130, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 2 (1968) (Judiciary 
Committee report recommending MDL bill) (“The committee believes that the possibility 
for conflict and duplication in discovery and other pretrial procedures in related cases can 
be avoided or minimized by such centralized management.”). 
Here, the Class Plaintiffs and the Individual Plaintiffs are jointly requesting that the 
Court sequence pretrial proceedings in a way that furthers these purposes, by allowing the 
Court to make determinations on common issues of law and fact that are presented in the 
consolidated Class Case in the first instance. Those threshold determinations will then 
establish the contours of this MDL, including which (if any) classes will be certified and 
what claims will go forward. In the event one or more classes are certified, the Court’s 
rulings on dispositive motions will be binding on all members of the certified class(es), 
including those individual plaintiffs who are members of a certified class and do not opt 
out. Sequencing pretrial proceedings to prioritize the resolution of common issues in the 
Class Case is consistent with “[t]he theory behind the MDL process,” which is “to 
‘eliminate duplication in discovery, avoid conflicting rulings and schedules, reduce 
litigation cost, and save the time and effort of the parties, the attorneys, the witnesses, and 
the courts.’” Uber, 2024 WL 2269321, at *9 (quoting Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 574 
U.S. 405, 410 (2015)). 
2.  
Without a stay, the Bank will continue to press its position that it is entitled 
to take the depositions of 128 non-class representative plaintiffs,3 for use in this Class 
 
3 These depositions were the subject of a discovery conference on August 20 and will be 
further addressed after briefing if not mooted by the Court’s order on this Motion to Stay. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 320     Filed 08/22/24     PageID.4136     Page 3
of 6

 
Class Plaintiffs’ Joinder In Individual Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay [ECF 311] 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB 
3 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Action,4 in the middle of class certification briefing and related expert discovery.5 In 
addition to evading the Federal Rules’ ten-deposition limit without any showing of need, 
this would impose an extraordinary burden that is unfair to Class Plaintiffs and entirely 
wasteful of party resources, particularly because Class Counsel would need to prepare for 
and participate in these Individual Plaintiff depositions. 
* 
* 
* 
These are just the foremost of many conflicts, inefficiencies, and prejudice that 
would arise from simultaneously litigating both the Class Case and the 133 Individual 
Plaintiff cases before the Court has had an opportunity to rule on common issues of law 
and fact affecting all of the claims in this MDL. 
 
For the foregoing reasons, Class Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant 
the Individual Plaintiffs’ Motion and stay the 133 Individual Cases—just as the claims of 
257 other individual plaintiffs have been stayed—until after the Court rules on the Motion 
for Class Certification and any dispositive motions in the Class Case. 
Respectfully submitted, 
Dated:  August 22, 2024  
 
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 
 
By:  /s/ Brian Danitz 
 
 
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT  
BRIAN DANITZ  
KARIN B. SWOPE  
ANDREW F. KIRTLEY 
VASTI S. MONTIEL 
 
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the 
Proposed Class  
 
 
4 The Bank has refused to stipulate that it will not use the 128 Individual Plaintiffs’ 
depositions to oppose Class Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. 
5 See ECF 302 (class certification motion due August 29, opposition due October 24, and 
reply due November 21, 2024). 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 320     Filed 08/22/24     PageID.4137     Page 4
of 6

 
Class Plaintiffs’ Joinder In Individual Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay [ECF 311] 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB 
4 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
Dated:  August 22, 2024  
 
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 
 
By:  /s/ Michael Rubin  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
MICHAEL RUBIN  
STACEY M. LEYTON  
CONNIE K. CHAN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
KATHERINE G. BASS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COLIN C. JONES 
 
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the 
Proposed Class  
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 320     Filed 08/22/24     PageID.4138     Page 5
of 6

 
Class Plaintiffs’ Joinder In Individual Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay [ECF 311] 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB 
5 
 
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
SIGNATURE ATTESTATION 
Pursuant to section 2(f)(4) of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and 
Procedures Manual, I, Brian Danitz, attest that the other signatories listed, and on whose 
behalf this filing is submitted, concur in the filing content and have authorized this filing. 
 
Dated: August 22, 2024  
 
 
/s/ Brian Danitz 
 
 
    Brian Danitz 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 320     Filed 08/22/24     PageID.4139     Page 6
of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.320.0.pdf

Size

183,945 bytes

SHA-256

fc944a6182ec755c9f8df3fa1b96d9dd6b195b56b62efd0c41b7a947ad338157

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.320.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)