Order Following Hearing on Class Certification — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 408, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)

Summary

An order following the hearing on class certification in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No.: 21MD2992-GPC(MSB), dated January 27, 2025 and filed 01/27/25 as Document 408. It records that at the January 17, 2025 hearing the court questioned whether plaintiffs could seek certification of a due process claim for the Credit Rescission Class and a breach of fiduciary duty claim for the Customer Service Class that were not alleged in the Second Amended Master Consolidated Complaint. Plaintiffs asked for leave to amend, defense counsel did not oppose, and plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Master Consolidated Complaint on January 24, 2025. The court directs Bank of America to answer and sets a Zoom status conference on February 14, 2025 on the fiduciary duty claim and class notice.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

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 FOLLOWING HEARING 
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION AND 
SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE 
 
On January 17, 2025, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for class 
certification.  (Dkt. No. 405.)  The Court issued a tentative order to the parties prior to the 
hearing.  At the hearing, the Court questioned whether Plaintiffs could seek class 
certification on a due process claim for the Credit Rescission Class when it was not raised 
in the Second Amended Master Consolidated Complaint (“SAMCC”) and whether 
Plaintiff could raise the breach of fiduciary claim for the Customer Service Class when it 
was not alleged in the SAMCC.  At the hearing, Class Plaintiffs’ counsel requested leave 
to amend those causes of action to add those allegations.  When asked, defense counsel 
did not oppose the amendments.  
On January 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Master Consolidated 
Complaint.  (Dkt. No. 406.)  Defendant is directed to file an Answer in accordance with 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3).   
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 408     Filed 01/27/25     PageID.25244     Page
1 of 2

 
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
 
As to the breach of fiduciary claim, the Court noted, in its tentative order, that the 
issue of whether the breach of fiduciary duty claim should be certified as to the Customer 
Service Class not only was not in the SAMCC but was also not briefed in the motion for 
class certification.  Accordingly, the Court sets a status conference via Zoom on 
February 14, 2025 at 1:30 p.m.  to address this issue as well as how the parties will 
proceed with Class Notice.  If the parties wish to discuss any other issues at the 
conference, they should identify the issue for the Court no later than February 7, 2025 
with an explanation as to what the parties have done to address it to date.  The Court will 
email the parties the Zoom link closer to the date of the hearing.   
 
IT IS SO ORDERED.  
Dated:  January 27, 2025 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 408     Filed 01/27/25     PageID.25245     Page
2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.408.0.pdf

Size

132,466 bytes

SHA-256

3ee338d3d1526529b7b5ff0296fbbe51558ef3a2022f8c8c40c7ca87f317d177

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.408.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)