Court filing
Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages by Carlos Rodriguez — In re BofA Unemployment Litigation (Dkt. 369)
Filed November 19, 2024 in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation; one of 1415 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2024-11-19 |
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 369 · 2024-11-19 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE REQUEST TO EXTEND PAGE LIMITS FOR
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
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
BLAIR V. KITTLE (SBN 336367)
bkittle@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
Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO DIVISION
IN RE BANK OF AMERICA
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS LITIGATION
This Document Relates to All Actions
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE REQUEST
TO EXTEND PAGE LIMITS FOR
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION
Courtroom: 2D, Second Floor
Judge: Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 369 Filed 11/19/24 PageID.13762 Page
1 of 6
- 1 -
3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE REQUEST TO EXTEND PAGE LIMITS FOR
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
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, DEFENDANT, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
Notice is hereby given that on November 19, 2024, Plaintiffs will and hereby do
apply to this Court ex parte for an order extending the page limit for their Reply Brief
in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief is due
to be filed on November 21, 2024. ECF No. 302. The currently permitted page limit is
twenty (20) pages. ECF No. 306.
On November 18, 2024, at approximately 8:30 p.m., Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted
Matthew Riffee, counsel for Defendant, and requested a stipulation to extend the page
limit for Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief by ten pages to a total of thirty (30) pages, subject to
court approval. Declaration of Gayle M. Blatt (“Blatt Decl.) ¶ 4. On November 19,
2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel were informed by Mr. Riffee that the Defendant was not
agreeable to Plaintiffs’ request for an extension of the page limit for their Reply Brief,
and that Defendant will oppose Plaintiffs’ request. Id. ¶ 4. On November 19, 2024,
Plaintiffs’ Counsel notified Mr. Riffee of Plaintiffs’ intention to file this ex parte
application to extend page limitations. Id. ¶ 5.
Plaintiffs bring this application for good cause on the grounds that they require
the additional pages to fully address the issues and arguments the Defendant raised in
its opposition to plaintiffs’ class certification motion. In particular, Defendant’s
opposition consists of the allotted forty-five (45) pages, and also includes five (5) expert
reports, multiple declarations of Defendant’s personnel and one hundred twenty-two
(122) exhibits. Id. ¶ 6, ECF Nos. 349, 350. Plaintiffs were not able to bring a fully
noticed motion because Plaintiffs Reply Brief was and is scheduled to be filed less than
thirty (30) days after the Defendant filed its opposition brief, expert reports and exhibits,
and the need for the excess pages was not known within the requisite time frame to
bring a regularly noticed motion. Id. ¶ 7.
Defendant will not suffer any prejudice if Plaintiffs’ ex parte request to extend
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 369 Filed 11/19/24 PageID.13763 Page
2 of 6
- 2 -
3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE REQUEST TO EXTEND PAGE LIMITS FOR
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
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 page limits is granted. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, will be prejudiced by a denial
of their ex parte application, as addressing the totality of Defendant’s opposition to
Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, including its numerous expert reports,
employee declarations and over 120 exhibits, warrants the allowance of pages in excess
of the currently approved twenty (20). Id. ¶ 8.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court extend
the page limit for Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification and allow Plaintiffs an additional ten (10) pages, for a total of thirty (30)
pages.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: November 19, 2024
CASEY GERRY SCHENK
FRANCAVILLA BLATT
& PENFIELD LLP
By: /s/ Gayle M. Blatt
Gayle M. Blatt
David S. Casey, Jr.
Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs and the
Proposed Class
Dated: November 19, 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
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 369 Filed 11/19/24 PageID.13764 Page
3 of 6
- 3 -
3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE REQUEST TO EXTEND PAGE LIMITS FOR
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
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: November 19, 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 369 Filed 11/19/24 PageID.13765 Page
4 of 6
- 4 -
3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE REQUEST TO EXTEND PAGE LIMITS FOR
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
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
ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE
Pursuant to Section 2(f)(4) of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies
and Procedures Manual, I, Gayle M. Blatt, hereby certify that the content of this
document is acceptable to all the signatories herein and that I have obtained counsel’s
authorization to affix their electronic signatures to this document.
/s/ Gayle M. Blatt
Gayle M. Blatt
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 369 Filed 11/19/24 PageID.13766 Page
5 of 6
- 5 -
3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE REQUEST TO EXTEND PAGE LIMITS FOR
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court
for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California by using the
CM/ECF system on November 19, 2024. I further certify that all participants in the case
are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF
system. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
/s/ Cass L. Lazar
Cass L. Lazar
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 369 Filed 11/19/24 PageID.13767 Page
6 of 6File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.casd.709615.369.0.pdf
- Size
- 129,989 bytes
- SHA-256
- 0c83e00aca8a15ef4524e718fb77c8d7822e95d00be7094e82db7cd258ebc2df
- Original
- PACER (login required)