Court filing
Discovery Plan by All Plaintiffs — Marshall v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC (Dkt. 61, E.D. Pa. No. 5:21-cv-04337)
Filed March 30, 2023 in Marshall v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC; one of 344 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2023-03-30 |
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG · Doc. 61 · 2023-03-30 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ALICIA MARSHALL, DANIEL PRONSKY, PARIS TOWNSEND, NANCILEE HOLLAND, LEONA OWSLEY, KOLAWOLE AHMADOU, KIANA DERVIN, KRISTINA HENDERSON, DUSTIN INNIS, KELLY STALNAKER and JAMIE JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC, and CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA, INC., Defendants. Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY PLAN Pursuant to the Court’s Order filed March 30, 2023 (ECF No. 57, ¶¶ 2(b) and (c)), Plaintiffs Alicia Marshall, Daniel Pronsky, Paris Townsend, Nancilee Holland, Leona Owsley, Kolawole Ahmadou, Kiana Dervin, Kristina Henderson, Dustin Innis, Kelly Stalnaker and Jamie Jones (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully propose the following plan for limited jurisdictional discovery directed to defendants Prestamos CDFI, LLC (“Prestamos”) and Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (“CPLC”) (collectively “Defendants”) on the issues of CPLC’s relationship with Prestamos. 1. Plaintiffs propose that Defendants shall collectively respond to the following discovery tools: a. no more than thirty (30) requests for production of documents pursuant to Rule 34; Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 61 Filed 04/20/23 Page 1 of 8 2 b. no more than ten (10) interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33; c. no more than 25 requests for admission; d. one (1) deposition not to exceed seven (7) hours of questioning of Jose Martinez (“Martinez”), who simultaneously served as Executive Vice President of CPLC and President of Prestamos and signed the loan documents Plaintiffs entered into with Prestamos for their Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans; e. no more than five (5) depositions not to exceed three and one-half (3.5) hours of questioning to account for Defendants’ common board members identified in subparagraphs 3(g) and (h) below; and f. one (1) deposition of a corporate designee (or designees) of each Defendant under Rule 30(b)(6) who must testify about information known or reasonably know to the organization about the matters for examination. 2. None of the above-referenced discovery shall be counted against any discovery limits that may otherwise apply to Plaintiffs in this case. 3. The subject matter of such limited jurisdictional discovery is proposed to include specifically the following: a. whether Prestamos and CPLC maintain common bank accounts, brokerage accounts, clearing accounts, or other similar accounts at any financial institution in which they receive or deposit money, including regarding any PPP loan processing fees paid to Prestamos by the U.S. Small Business Administration (the “SBA”); Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 61 Filed 04/20/23 Page 2 of 8 3 b. the transfer of any PPP loan processing fees and other revenue or income including without limitation interest income that Prestamos received from PPP lending, between Prestamos and CPLC; c. the performance of business activities by one of Defendants for the benefit of the other; d. the performance of any aspect of PPP lending by CPLC or CPLC employees or directors, including without limitation CPLC’s attempts to help Prestamos seek repayment of PPP loans plus interest, including as to PPP loans that were never funded; e. Defendants’ compensation of Prestamos officers, directors, and employees, including the bank, brokerage, clearing or other accounts from which such compensation was paid; f. the identity and role of all of Defendants’ employees who simultaneously rendered services to both Prestamos and CPLC at any time from September 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021, such as Martinez who simultaneously served as Executive Vice President of CPLC and President of Prestamos and signed the loan documents the parties entered into (ECF No. 42 at ECF p.86), and through which bank, brokerage, clearing or other account such employees were paid compensation; g. the role CPLC President and CEO David Adame (“Adame”), CPLC CFO Alicia Nunez (“Nunez”), and CPLC Executive Vice President Max Gonzales (“Gonzales”) played in PPP lending and in directing any of Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 61 Filed 04/20/23 Page 3 of 8 4 Prestamos’s business activities or other affairs, as they were also the sole members of Prestamos’s governing Board of Directors; h. the role CPLC Board Members Jose Antonio Habre (“Habre”) and Dan Hernandez (“Hernandez”) played in PPP lending and in directing any of Prestamos’s business activities or other affairs, as they were simultaneously also members of Prestamos’s Community Advisory Board and thereby also participated in the business activities and affairs of Prestamos; i. references in CPLC’s own financial statements to “CPLC Prestamos” such as in CPLC’s FY 2019-2020 Annual Report; j. references to “the Organization’s” revenue from PPP loan lending such as in CPLC’s Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended June 30, 2021; k. references in Prestamos’s website that “through its parent corporation,” CPLC it “has administered a variety of lending programs since 1980”; l. references on CPLC’s website to “CPLC Prestamos CDFI,” “CPLC Prestamos” and “CPLC PRESTAMOS LOAN PRODUCTS;” m. how as a domestic nonprofit organization organized under Arizona law CPLC’s status as exempt from income tax was impacted by Prestamos’s revenue from PPP lending; n. whether any Prestamos employees or directors had an office in or otherwise worked from or at CPLC’s corporate headquarters, and whether Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 61 Filed 04/20/23 Page 4 of 8 5 any CPLC employees or directors had an office in or otherwise worked from or at Prestamos’s corporate headquarters; o. Prestamos’s observation of corporate formalities such as whether it kept board agendas and minutes separate from CPLC and CPLC’s observation of corporate formalities such as whether it kept board agendas and minutes separate from Prestamos; p. Prestamos’s levels of capitalization; q. activities of each of Defendant’s board of directors; r. details regarding the day-to-day business activities of Martinez, Adame, Nunez, Gonzales, Habre and Hernandez; s. Defendants’ payment of dividends, interest or other revenue or income from or attributable to PPP lending; t. the presence or absence of formal corporate records, such as board minutes, board agendas, regarding the purported separate corporate structures of Prestamos and CPLC; u. Defendants’ activities concerning PPP lending in Pennsylvania; and v. Defendants’ answers and responses to written discovery requests and the information contained therein. Plaintiffs may seek deposition testimony addressed to the foregoing and additional subject matter related to the Court’s jurisdiction over CPLC as detailed herein. 4. Plaintiffs shall serve requests for production, requests for admission and interrogatories directed to personal jurisdiction on Defendants no later than fourteen (14) days after the Court’s entry of an order adopting a jurisdictional discovery plan. Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 61 Filed 04/20/23 Page 5 of 8 6 5. Defendants shall serve written responses to Plaintiffs’ written discovery in accordance with the provisions of Rule 33. 6. Defendants shall produce documents and written responses in accordance with the provisions of Rule 34. 7. Defendants shall produce privilege logs no later than fourteen (14) days after making their document productions. 8. Electronically stored information (“ESI”) shall be produced as TIF images or PDFs, or if necessary to be reasonably understood, in their native formats. Any digital text contained in the original ESI shall be produced with the TIF images or included in the PDFs. Color originals of documents or ESI shall be produced in color. After reviewing TIF or PDF copies of ESI, Plaintiffs may request additional copies requested in their native formats to the extent reasonably necessary. 9. Plaintiffs may take the depositions of Jose Martinez and up to six other witnesses within 45 days after Defendants’ production of documents and privilege logs. Those depositions will be held within 100 miles of the witnesses’ residences or principal places of business. 10. Plaintiffs shall file a Third Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days after the last of the above-referenced depositions. 11. CPLC shall be permitted to answer or file a renewed motion to dismiss within twenty (20) days after Plaintiffs file the Third Amended Complaint. 12. If CPLC files a renewed motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs shall file their opposition within twenty-one (21) days after CPLC’s renewed motion to dismiss is filed. 13. The following chart reflects Plaintiffs’ proposed schedule for jurisdictional discovery. Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 61 Filed 04/20/23 Page 6 of 8 7 Event Deadline Plaintiffs serve written discovery 14 days after the Court’s entry of an order adopting a jurisdictional discovery plan Defendants serve written responses to Plaintiffs’ written discovery 30 days after Plaintiffs’ service of discovery Defendants produce documents and privilege logs responsive to Plaintiffs’ written discovery 20 days after Defendants’ serve written responses Plaintiffs take depositions of Defendants’ witnesses 45 days after Defendants’ production of documents and privilege logs Plaintiffs file Third Amended Complaint 30 days after completion of depositions CPLC files renewed motion to dismiss 20 days after Plaintiffs file Third Amended Complaint Plaintiffs respond to renewed motion to dismiss 21 days after CPLC files renewed motion to dismiss Dated: April 20, 2023 Bailey & Glasser LLP By: /s/ Lawrence J. Lederer Lawrence J. Lederer (Pa. ID 50445) Bart D. Cohen (Pa. ID 57606) 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 T.: 202.463-2101 F.: 202.463-2103 llederer@baileyglasser.com bcohen@baileyglasser.com Bailey & Glasser LLP Michael L. Murphy (admitted pro hac vice) 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 T.: 202.463.2101 F.: 202.463.2103 mmurphy@baileyglasser.com Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 61 Filed 04/20/23 Page 7 of 8 8 Nolan Heller Kauffman LLP Justin A. Heller (admitted pro hac vice) Matthew M. Zapala (admitted pro hac vice) 80 State Street, 11th Floor Albany, NY 12207 T.: 518.449.3300 F.: 518.432.3123 jheller@nhkllp.com mzapala@nhkllp.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class and Subclasses Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 61 Filed 04/20/23 Page 8 of 8
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.paed.589575.61.0.pdf
- Size
- 225,987 bytes
- SHA-256
- 7ea4da6a6ba499c51807538cb6802c73f010a8839978cb1f494122e8871642f7
- Original
- PACER (login required)