Court filing
Joint Motion to Continue Stay of the Individual Plaintiffs' Proceedings — In re BofA Unemployment Litigation (Dkt. 500)
Filed June 26, 2025 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 | 2025-06-26 |
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 500 · 2025-06-26 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE
STAY
CASE NO. 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
JAMES W. MCGARRY (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 (pro hac vice)
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (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
Attorneys for Defendant
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED IN SIGNATURE BLOCK]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -
SAN DIEGO DIVISION
IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS LITIGATION
Case No. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE
STAY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
PLAINTIFFS’ PROCEEDINGS
Ctrm:
14A - 14th Floor
Judge:
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
No oral argument pursuant to Civil
Local Rule 7.2.
Filed/Lodged Concurrently with:
1. Proposed Order
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 500 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29264 Page
1 of 10
JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE
STAY
1
CASE NO. 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
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.2, the Individual Plaintiffs in the multi-district
litigation captioned In re: Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits
Litigation, Case No. 3:21-MD-02992 (“Individual Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Bank
of America, N.A. (“BANA”) (together with Individual Plaintiffs, the “Parties”),
through their undersigned counsel, stipulate and jointly move this Court to continue
the stay that was entered on September 17, 2024 (Dkt. 338), which stayed the
Individual Plaintiffs’ proceedings until an order on class certification was entered
(id. at 14). The Parties now seek to continue this stay at least until BANA’s
forthcoming Rule 23(f) petition is resolved by the Ninth Circuit, and through the end
of dispositive motion practice in the Class Action if the Classes remain certified
following BANA’s Rule 23(f) petition.1
BACKGROUND
This multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) arises from several class actions
(brought by the “Class Plaintiffs”) and a large number of individual actions (brought
by the Individual Plaintiffs) brought against BANA regarding allegations related to
prepaid debit cards through which Class and Individual Plaintiffs received
unemployment benefits from California’s Employment Development Department
(“EDD”) during the COVID-19 pandemic. See Dkt. 406. 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) and eight additional class actions were subsequently
filed and consolidated with Yick on March 29, 2021 (id.). Since then, other class
action plaintiffs and hundreds of individual plaintiffs have filed actions against
BANA related to 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 consolidation. Dkt. 1. Plaintiffs were directed to file a single master
1 Consistent with Federal Rule 23(f), BANA intends to file a petition to the Ninth
Circuit for permission to appeal the Court’s June 16, 2025 order granting Plaintiffs’
motion to certify their proposed Classes (Dkt. 494) on June 30, 2025.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 500 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29265 Page
2 of 10
JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE
STAY
2
CASE NO. 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
consolidated complaint to include all claims on behalf of the putative class and
individual plaintiffs’ claims. Id. at 2. “As such, any new cases filed or tag along cases
transferred after the filing of the [master consolidated complaint] have been stayed
until resolution of the MDL.” Dkt. 338 at 4.
On August 13, 2024, the Individual Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay their
proceedings pending resolution of common issues of law and fact in the Class Action.
Dkt. 311-1. The Court granted the motion in part, staying the Individual Plaintiffs’
proceedings through entry of a class certification order. Dkt. 338. On August 29,
2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification (Dkt. 324), which was ultimately
granted on June 16, 2025 (Dkt. 494). The Parties now jointly move to have the stay
granted by this Court (Dkt. 338) continued through at least the resolution of BANA’s
forthcoming Rule 23(f) petition to the Ninth Circuit, and through the end of
dispositive motion practice in the Class Action if the Classes remain certified
following BANA’s Rule 23(f) petition and any related filings.
ARGUMENT
I.
Legal Standard
This Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings under its inherent
authority. “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in
every court to control the disposition of the causes [sic] on its docket with economy
of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299
U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (describing the court’s power to stay proceedings pending
resolution of a related case, commonly referred to as a “Landis Stay”). As part of the
Court’s power to control its docket, the Court has discretion to stay proceedings
“pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v.
Certified Grocers of Cal. Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). Exercising this
discretion is appropriate when the resolution of another matter will directly affect the
issues before the court. See Mediterranean Enters. v. SsangYong Corp., 708 F.2d
1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (affirming stay of district court proceedings pending
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 500 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29266 Page
3 of 10
JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE
STAY
3
CASE NO. 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
resolution of arbitration on the same claims); see also San Diego Padres Baseball
P’ship v. United States, 2001 WL 710601, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 10, 2001) (granting
stay of case pending resolution of related appeal).
The propriety of a “Landis Stay” requires the court to weigh “the competing
interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay.” Lockyer v.
Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300
F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). Such competing interests include “the possible
damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which
a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and 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, 398 F.3d at 1110
(quoting CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at 268). As explained in more detail below, each
factor weighs in favor of granting the Parties’ Joint Motion to Continue the Stay.
II.
Proceedings Related to the Individual Plaintiffs Should Remain Stayed.
Now that the Court has certified the Class Plaintiffs’ classes, continuing the
stay it originally ordered will likely promote judicial economy and the orderly course
of justice, and will likely save the Parties and the Court unnecessary time and
expense. Dkt. 338 (staying the litigation for the Individual Plaintiffs through at least
certification of the class); see also Dkt. 48 (staying all individual plaintiff claims that
were not consolidated with the MDL); Connor v. Bank of America, N.A., 2025 WL
1115031, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. April 15, 2025) (Curiel, J.) (denying motion to lift stay
of individual related action to the MDL); accord Delapaz v. Bank of America, N.A.,
2025 WL 115029, *3 (S.D. Cal. April 15, 2025) (Curiel, J.).
First, a stay will promote judicial economy because it may allow the Court to
assess, resolve, and/or simplify the common questions of law and fact that the Court
found are at issue for the Class Plaintiffs, and then apply its decisions to the
Individual Plaintiffs’ individual facts and circumstances to assess the validity of their
particular allegations and any purported resulting harm. Courts have found that this
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 500 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29267 Page
4 of 10
JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE
STAY
4
CASE NO. 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
is particularly true with respect to a stay through resolution of summary judgment.
See Connor, 2025 WL 1115031 at *3 (finding that “[t]he ruling on summary
judgment will simplify the issues in the case”); accord Delapaz, 2025 WL 115029 at
*3. As this Court has already found, in instances such as these, “[a] stay or
maintaining a stay promotes the orderly cause of justice where the underlying
proceedings are likely to decide or contribute to the issues before the court.” Connor,
2025 WL 1115031 at *3; accord Delapaz, 2025 WL 115029 at *3.
Second, the Parties agree that maintaining the stay will not result in undue
hardship. The potential prejudice of being temporarily prevented from pursuing
individual discovery or dispositive motion practice has always existed—including at
the time the stay was entered. As the Court previously found, there is “no harm” in
delaying discovery for the Individual Plaintiffs where “discovery for the individual
plaintiffs 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.” Dkt. 338 at 9. Further, the Individual Plaintiffs seek only monetary
relief, not equitable relief from any ongoing harm allegedly being inflicted by
BANA.2 “‘Mere delay in receiving damages is an insufficient basis to deny a stay.’”
Connor, 2025 WL 1115031 at *3 (quoting Ludlow v. Flowers Foods, Inc., 2020 WL
773253, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2020)); accord Delapaz, 2025 WL 115029 at *3;
see also Nguyen v. Marketsource, Inc., 2018 WL 2182633, at *6 (S.D. Cal. May 11,
2018) (noting plaintiff “will . . . not be unduly prejudiced or harmed by a delay in
receiving monetary relief”). Thus, the Individual Plaintiffs face no undue prejudice
sufficient to justify lifting the stay.
Conversely, BANA may face undue hardship if this stay were lifted given the
inefficiency it would present should Plaintiffs’ classes remain certified. Lifting the
2 As the MDL record reflects, BANA is no longer providing prepaid debit card
services for the EDD unemployment insurance program (Dkt. 255 at 1), and Plaintiffs
have not identified any ongoing harm being inflicted upon them by BANA.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 500 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29268 Page
5 of 10
JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE
STAY
5
CASE NO. 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
stay would force BANA to expend needless costs, time, and effort engaging in
discovery and substantive briefing on issues that will likely be duplicative and may
be “legally barred” given the matters currently being considered in the Class Action.
See CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 2014 WL 223082, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan
21, 2014) (finding stay justified because litigating case could “subject [defendant] to
unnecessary cost and expense of litigating a case that could be legally barred”
through claim or issue preclusion). Forcing BANA to litigate claims that may
be barred through collateral estoppel would be inefficient, and would place an
undue burden on BANA that outweighs Plaintiffs’ unidentified harm. Connor,
2025 WL 1115031 at *3 (“[D]istrict courts have found that engaging in
unnecessary motion practice and unnecessarily planning and preparing for trial
constitute hardship that supports a stay.”); accord Delapaz, 2025 WL 115029 at
*3. The balance of equities and interests of judicial efficiency and economy favor
continuing the stay through at least the resolution of BANA’s Rule 23(f) petition,
and through the resolution of dispositive motion practice in the Class Action
if the classes remain certified following BANA’s Rule 23(f) petition.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Parties jointly ask this Court to continue the stay
of the Individual Plaintiffs’ proceedings at least until BANA’s forthcoming Rule
23(f) petition is resolved by the Ninth Circuit, and through the end of dispositive
motion practice in the Class Action if the classes remain certified following BANA’s
Rule 23(f) petition and any related filings.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 500 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29269 Page
6 of 10
JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE
STAY
6
CASE NO. 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
Dated:
June 26, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ Matthew L. Riffee_____
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice)
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com
THOMAS M. HEFFERON (pro hac
vice)
THefferon@goodwinlaw.com
SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH (pro hac
vice)
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: +1 202 346 4000
Fax: +1 202 346 4444
JAMES W. MCGARRY (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
LAURA G. BRYS (SBN 242100)
LBrys@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
601 S Figueroa St., Suite 4100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel.: +1 213 426 2500
Fax: +1 617 346 4444
VALERIE A. HAGGANS (pro hac
vice)
VHaggans@goodwinlaw.com
LINDSAY E. HOYLE (pro hac vice)
LHoyle@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Tel: +1 212 813-8800
Fax: +1 212 355-3333
YVONNE W. CHAN (pro hac vice)
YChan@jonesday.com
JONES DAY
100 High Street
Boston, MA 02110
Tel.: +1 617 960 3939
Fax: +1 617 449 6999
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 500 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29270 Page
7 of 10
JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE
STAY
7
CASE NO. 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
Dated:
June 26, 2025
JANICE P. BROWN (SBN 114433)
jbrown@myersnave.com
MATTHEW B. NAZARETH (SBN
278405)
mnazareth@myersnave.com
MEYERS NAVE
600 B Street, Suite 1650
San Diego, CA 92101
Attorneys for Defendant
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
By: s/ Joshua Swigart__________
Joshua Swigart
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
221 Camino del Rio S., Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
(866) 219-3343
josh@swigartlawgroup.com
Lead Counsel for the Individual
Plaintiffs
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 500 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29271 Page
8 of 10
JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE
STAY
8
CASE NO. 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
ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE
Pursuant to Section 2(f)(4) of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative
Policies and Procedures Manual, I, Matthew L. Riffee, 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/ Matthew L. Riffee
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 500 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29272 Page
9 of 10
JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE
STAY
9
CASE NO. 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
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 June 26, 2025. 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.
Executed: June 26, 2025
s/ Matthew L. Riffee
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 500 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29273 Page
10 of 10File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.casd.709615.500.0.pdf
- Size
- 304,580 bytes
- SHA-256
- fdf8d02107d82819bc474c8a9739396cd2ce4cd6bc069fb0da259d733807d42c
- Original
- PACER (login required)